From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Stephen Eglen Subject: Re: zotero (or mendeley) integration with org Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2011 12:39:26 +0100 Message-ID: References: <26045.1301154464@rgc.damtp.cam.ac.uk> <87aageppnf.fsf@fastmail.fm> <87ipv2cryn.fsf@lw-wireless-pittnet-40-144.wireless.pitt.edu> <8739m6oyqf.fsf@fastmail.fm> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=46673 helo=eggs.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Q5GEH-0000Fl-1w for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Thu, 31 Mar 2011 07:39:58 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Q5GEB-0007lF-9D for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Thu, 31 Mar 2011 07:39:52 -0400 Received: from lo.gmane.org ([80.91.229.12]:36054) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Q5GEB-0007kb-3c for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Thu, 31 Mar 2011 07:39:51 -0400 Received: from list by lo.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Q5GE7-00015d-La for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Thu, 31 Mar 2011 13:39:47 +0200 Received: from rgc.damtp.cam.ac.uk ([131.111.17.127]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Thu, 31 Mar 2011 13:39:47 +0200 Received: from S.J.Eglen by rgc.damtp.cam.ac.uk with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Thu, 31 Mar 2011 13:39:47 +0200 List-Id: "General discussions about Org-mode." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: emacs-orgmode-bounces+geo-emacs-orgmode=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: emacs-orgmode-bounces+geo-emacs-orgmode=m.gmane.org@gnu.org To: emacs-orgmode@gnu.org > Agreed. Google Scholar citations need very close proofreading, as they > can be erroneous or poorly formatted. Thanks Matt - I'd agree with this, having seen oddities from google scholar. I emailed them ages ago about one problem (formatting of initials in author names), but never heard back... it is a pity that there is no mechanism for tidying up their references, as it seems to be the best thing out there that covers all the fields. Having said that, if google scholar can save me some typing, I'll happilyuse it as a starting point for a bibtex entry. I've just started using pdfmeat -- this is nice, as given a pdf, it outputs the corresponding bibtex entry from google scholar. Probably works similar to the way zotero does it, but can be used straight from the command line: http://code.google.com/p/pdfmeat/ (Warning: I couldn't get one of the python dependencies, unidecode, to work on mac, but it does work on ubuntu for me.) > accessed by bibsnarf are limited to math and sciences. Since I use > biblatex together with the Chicago Manual of Style, any bibtex entry I > clip has to be edited and tweaked substantially. (Indeed, manual editing > is unavoidable when using biblatex.) If its not too tangential, why do you use biblatex -- is it the future for bibtex? Thanks for summarising your workflow, very helpful. Stephen