Blog

Preview of Docear 1.1 with PDF Metadata Retrieval from Google Scholar

Thanks to all the generous donors, our student Christoph could work on an improved PDF metadata retrieval for Docear, and today it’s time to present the first preview. The new Docear 1.1 (preview) is able to extract the title of a PDF and fetch appropriate metadata from Google Scholar. Whenever you select a PDF in your mind-map and chose “Create or Update reference”, the following new dialog appears.

The dialog shows the file name of your PDF file, and the extracted title. In the background, the extracted title is sent to Google Scholar and metadata for the first three search results are shown in the dialog.  If the title was extracted incorrectly, you can manually correct it. You may also chose to use the PDF’s file name for the search. For instance, when you named your PDF already according to the title, select the radio button with the file name, and the file name is sent as search query to Google Scholar (you may also manually correct the file name before it’s sent to Google Scholar). Of course, all other options you already know are still available, such as creating a blank entry, or importing the XMP data of PDFs. Btw. Docear remembers your choice, i.e. when you select to create a blank entry, the option will be pre-selected when open that dialog the next time. It might happen, that your IP will be blocked by Google Scholar when you use the service too frequently. If this happens, a captcha should appear, and after solving it, you should be able to proceed. We did not yet test this thoroughly. Please let us know your experiences.

The precision of our metadata tool depends on two factors, A) the precision of the title extraction and B) the coverage of Google Scholar. According to a recent experiment, title extraction of our tool is around 70%. However, the final result very much depends on the format of your research articles. In my research field (i.e. recommender systems), I would say that our tool extracts the title correctly for about 90% of the articles in my personal library. In addition, almost all articles that are relevant for my research are indexed by Google Scholar (i would estimate, more than 90%). This means, for around 80% of my PDFs the correct metadata is retrieved fully automatically. Given that I provide the title manually, for even more than 90% the metadata may be retrieved. Please let us know your experience (and your research field). (more…)

By Joeran Beel, ago

Docear4LibreOffice / Docear4OpenOffice: Call for Donation (2500$)

–> Read here for the latest update <–

One of our users’ most requested feature is an add-on for LibreOffice and OpenOffice, similar to Docear4Word, which allows adding formatted references and bibliographies in Microsoft Word based on Docear’s BibTeX files. Unfortunately, we have no skills in developing add-ons for Libre or OpenOffice, which is why we were looking for a freelancer to help us. Now, finally, we found one. The freelancer is offering to develop a pendant to Docear4Word that works with LibreOffice and OpenOffice. This means, you will be able to select a reference from Docears’ BibTeX database, and the add-on will insert the in-text citation and the bibliography in your Libre/OpenOffice document. Analog to Docear4Word, you will be able to choose from more than 2,000 citation styles to format your references.

However, the freelancer is not developing the add-on for free. He asks for 2500 US$ (~1,900€), which we believe to be a fair price. Therefore, we kindly ask you to donate, so we can pay the freelancer to develop a Docear4Libre/OpenOffice. Of course, the add-on will be open-source, reading not only Docear’s BibTeX files but also BibTeX files of other BibTeX based reference managers. The freelancer already developed a simple proof-of concept (see screenshot), which uses citeproc-java to add BibTeX based references. As such, we have no doubts that the freelancer will be able to deliver the promised add-on — if we can collect enough money.

The freelancer’s is already working on the add-on and his goal is to finish it in the next two months or so. However, as long as we cannot pay him, he will not release the add-on, even if he has finished his work (and if he learns that there are no donations coming, he might decide to stop his work at any time). Therefore, if you want a Docear4Libre/OpenOffice, please donate now! Donate 1$, 5$, 10$, 50$ or 500$ — any contribution matters, and the sooner we have all the money, the sooner you can manage your BibTeX references in LibreOffice and OpenOffice.

Donate via PayPal, or, to save PayPal fees, make a SEPA bank transfer to Docear, IBAN DE18700222000020015578, BIC FDDODEMMXXX. SEPA bank transfers are free of charge within the European Union.

 

 
AUD
CAD
EUR
GBP
JPY
USD
NZD
CHF
HKD
SGD
SEK
DKK
PLN
NOK
HUF
CZK
ILS
MXN
BRL
MYR
PHP
TWD
THB
TRY
RUB

 

 

 

We will keep you posted on the amount of donations, and any important news.
(more…)

By Joeran Beel, ago

Docear 1.0.3 Beta: rate recommendation, new web interface, bug fixes, …

Update: February 18, 2014: No bugs were reported, as such we declare Docear 1.03 with its recommender system as stable. It can be downloaded on the normal download page.

With Docear 1.0.3 beta we have improved PDF handling, the recommender system, provided some help for new users and enhanced the way how you can access your mind maps online.

PDF Handling

We fixed several minor bugs with regard to PDF handling. In previous versions of Docear, nested PDF bookmarks were imported twice when you drag & dropped a PDF file to the mind map. Renaming PDF files from within Docear changed the file links in your mind maps but did not change them in your BibTeX file. Both issues are fixed now. To rename a PDF file from within Docear you just have to right-click it in Docear’s workspace panel on the left hand side and it is important that the mind maps you have linked the file in, are opened. We know, this is still not ideal, and will improve this in future versions of Docear.

Rate Your Recommendations

You already know about our recommender system for academic literature. If you want to help us improving it, you can now rate how good a specific set of recommendations reflects your personal field of interest. Btw. it would be nice if you do not rate a set of recommendations negatively only because it contains some recommendations you received previously. Currently, we have no mechanism to detect duplicate recommendations.

rate a literature recommendation set

(more…)

By Joeran Beel, ago

Call for Donation: (Automatic) PDF Metadata Extraction and Renaming

Done! We’ve got all the money we need, thank you very much!!!!!!!! Read on here…

 
One of Docear’s biggest disadvantages, compared to other reference managers, is the rather poor PDF metadata extraction capability. As such, it is no surprise that the second most popular feature request is to add decent PDF metadata extraction  and file renaming to Docear. However, adding such a function is a lot of work and we currently do not really have the manpower for this. Fortunately, one of our best students – i.e. Christoph, who already did a lot of work for us – wants a paid job for his semester breaks. If we could pay him 1,800 Euros, he would love to implement the PDF metadata extraction method in his semester breaks, and we have no doubts that he is capable of doing it. The problem is, we don’t have the funds to pay him.

Therefore, we would like to start a call for donation: If you want decent PDF metadata extraction in Docear, please donate, before February 28, 2014. We need 1,800 Euros to pay Christoph for four weeks, almost full-time, starting the end of February.

 
AUDCADEURGBPJPYUSDNZDCHFHKDSGDSEKDKKPLNNOKHUFCZKILSMXNBRLMYRPHPTWDTHBTRYRUB

 
(more…)

By Joeran Beel, ago

Docear 2013 in review and our plans for 2014

It’s almost a bit late to review 2013 but better late than never. 2013 doubtlessly was the most active and most successful year for Docear, so far. First and foremost, we finally released Docear 1.0, after releasing many Beta and Release Candidates. Of course, Docear 1.0 is far from being perfect, but we are really proud of it and we think it’s an awesome piece of software to manage references, PDFs, and much more. But there were many noteworthy events more, some of which we took pictures of:

We presented several research papers at the JCDL in Chicago, TPDL on Malta, and RecSys/RepSys in Hong Kong. It is always a pleasure to attend such conferences. Not only because they take place at really nice locations, but because you meet really interesting people (for instance Kris Jack from Mendeley, a really enthusiastic and smart guy who develops Mendeley’s recommender system, or Joseph A. Konstan, who is a true pioneer in the field of recommender systems).

2013-09-23_15-08-37--2013_in_review__Docear-reference mananagement

TPDL on Malta

2013-07-18_11-01-10--2013_in_review__Docear-reference mananagement

JCDL in Chicago

2013 hong kong

RecSys in Hong Kong

Almost every year, our mentor Prof. Andreas Nürnberger is inviting his team members to a sailing turn, and so he did 2013. For several days we were sailing the Baltic Sea, learned a lot about team work and had a lot of fun.

2013-08-13_16-25-30--2013_in_review__Docear-reference mananagement

Sailing turn with our mentor Prof. Nürnberger, the Docear team, and some PhD students of his working group

We had the honour to supervise an excellent student team at HTW Berlin thanks to Prof. Weber-Wulff. The students did a great job in developing the Docear Web prototype. It’s a pity that the prototype has not yet found its way into our live system, but we have not had the time to give the prototype the last bug fixes and features it needs. However, this is very high on our todo list.

2013-07-12_15-09-14--2013_in_review__Docear-reference mananagement

Four of the five students at HTW Berlin who developed a prototype of “Docear Web”

Docear is primarily located in Magdeburg, Germany, which is close to Berlin. Therefore, we didn’t think twice when Researchgate hosted the 10th “Recommender Stammtisch” (regulars’ table) in Berlin. There, we could listened to an enlightening talk of Andreas Lommatzsch, and an entertaining introduction of Researchgate’s CEO Ijad Madisch.

2013-11-14_21-09-31--2013_in_review__Docear-reference mananagement

(more…)

By Joeran Beel, ago

Comprehensive Comparison of Reference Managers: Mendeley vs. Zotero vs. Docear

Which one is the best reference management software? That’s a question any student or researcher should think about quite carefully, because choosing the best reference manager may save lots of time and increase the quality of your work significantly. So, which reference manager is best? Zotero? Mendeley? Docear? …? The answer is: “It depends”, because different people have different needs. Actually, there is no such thing as the ‘best’ reference manager but only the reference manager that is best for you (even though some developers seem to believe that their tool is the only truly perfect one).

In this Blog-post, we compare Zotero, Mendeley, and Docear and we hope that the comparison helps you to decide which of the reference managers is best for you. Of course, there are many other reference managers. Hopefully, we can include them in the comparison some day, but for now we only have time to compare the three. We really tried to do a fair comparison, based on a list of criteria that we consider important for reference management software. Of course, the criteria are subjectively selected, as are all criteria by all reviewers, and you might not agree with all of them. However, even if you disagree with our evaluation, you might find at least some new and interesting aspects as to evaluate reference management tools. You are very welcome to share your constructive criticism in the comments, as well as links to other reviews. In addition, it should be obvious that we – the developers of Docear – are somewhat biased. However, this comparison is most certainly more objective than those that Mendeley and other reference managers did ;-).

Please note that we only compared about 50 high-level features and used a simple rating scheme in the summary table. Of course, a more comprehensive list of features and a more sophisticated rating scheme would have been nice, but this would have been too time consuming. So, consider this review as a rough guideline. If you feel that one of the mentioned features is particularly important to you, install the tools yourself, compare the features, and share your insights in the comments! Most importantly, please let us know when something we wrote is not correct. All reviewed reference tools offer lots of functions, and it might be that we missed one during our review.

Please note that the developers of all three tools constantly improve their tools and add new features. Therefore, the table might be not perfectly up-to-date. In addition, it’s difficult to rate a particular functionality with only one out of three possible ratings (yes; no; partly). Therefore, we highly suggest to read the detailed review, which explains the rationale behind the ratings.

The  table above provides an overview of how Zotero, Mendeley, and Docear support you in various tasks, how open and free they are, etc. Details on the features and ratings are provided in the following sections. As already mentioned, if you notice a mistake in the evaluation (e.g. missed a key feature), please let us know in the comments.

Overview

If you don’t want to read a lot, just jump to the summary

We believe that a reference manager should offer more features than simple reference management. It should support you in (1) finding literature, (2) organizing and annotating literature, (3) drafting your papers, theses, books, assignments, etc., (4) managing your references (of course), and (5) writing your papers, theses, etc. Additionally, many – but not all – students and researchers might be interested in (6) socializing and collaboration, (7) note, task, and general information management, and (8) file management. Finally, we think it is important that a reference manager (9) is available for the major operating systems, (10) has an information management approach you like (tables, social tags, search, …), and (11) is open, free, and sustainable (see also What makes a bad reference manager).

(more…)

By Joeran Beel, ago

Do a paid internship abroad at SciPlore – Summer 2014

The SciPlore team at Google HQ in Mountain View, CA

The SciPlore team at Google HQ in Mountain View, CA

Our partnering research group SciPlore, from which Docear evolved, in cooperation with the German Academic Exchange Service (DAAD) is offering a paid internship for a Bachelor student in the field of computer science. Prerequisite for applying is that you are a student studying at a German university (if you are from the US, UK, or Canada, read here). More details on prerequisites here.

SciPlore is an international team of researchers affiliated with the University of Magdeburg in Germany and  the University of California, Berkeley. As an intern, you will have the chance to spend 6-12 weeks abroad at a research institute collaborating with the SciPlore research team.
SciPlore researches novel approaches in citation and semantic text analysis for quantifying similarities between scientific articles. Similarity assessments are crucial to many Information Retrieval (IR) tasks, such as clustering of documents, recommending academic literature, or automatically detecting plagiarism.

(more…)

By Joeran Beel, ago

Elsevier (i.e. the owner of Mendeley) “asks” the users of Academia.edu (i.e. a competitor of Mendeley) to take their papers down

A week ago, Elsevier sent messages to some users of Academia.edu, a social network for researchers (Source: Chronicle). Elsevier asked these users to remove some of their papers from their profile page at Academia.edu. Apparently, Elsevier wasn’t happy that the authors published papers that Elsevier holds the publishing rights for. It’s an interesting discussion whether Elsevier has the right to prohibit uploading papers on Academia’s profile page, because authors have the right to publish their articles on their private homepages. Now, authors might argue that their Academia.edu profile is their private homepage.

What is even more interesting is the fact that it’s Elsevier who did this. That is the same company that recently bought the reference manger Mendeley, which, coincidentally, also offers a social network and hence is a competitor of Academia.edu. I wonder, if Elsevier will soon start to send messages to Mendeley users telling them, too, to not  upload their papers to their profile pages. Or, if Elsevier will just send these messages to users of social networks such as Academia.edu and Researchgate to strenghten their own product Mendeley. Either way, it’s not a nice move from Elsevier and confirms the negative attitude that many researchers have against this publisher and it brings back the doubt about Mendeley’s openness.

Some more detailed discussions on this topic can be found here:

(more…)

By Joeran Beel, ago

Docear 1.02 Beta: Serious PDF Bug Fix; added a donation button

We discovered a serious bug in Docear that relates to the PDF management. In some situations, it could happen that when you edited a PDF, the annotation IDs were not recognized correctly, and a conflict was shown. We fixed this bug and publish Docear 1.02 as a beta version today. Right now, the Beta version download is only available in our forum. We would appreciate if you could test the new version. If there are no more serious bugs found, we will publish it as stable version without any further notifications.

We also added a “Please Donate” note to the workspace panel. It leads you to our donation page and you are sincerely invited to make use of that page :-). If you have already donated, if you just don’t want to donate, or if you need every pixel in the workspace, do a right-click on that note and you will be able to hide it. In addition, we also changed the welcome page that opens after you have installed Docear.

New “Please donate” note in Docear

New “Welcome” page 

(more…)

By Joeran Beel, ago

Docear 1.01 with some minor improvements and bug fixes

A few days ago we released the experimental version of Docear and wrote about it in our experimental release forum (you can subscribe to that forum if you want to be informed about new experimental releases). Today we declare Docear 1.01 as stable and from now on it’s available on our primary download page. Changes are rather minor. 

Enhancements include

  • A slightly modified dialog for selecting your PDF viewer (some links were updated)
  • The labeling of the file monitoring settings are now more uniform
  • The colors for “Move …” in the “Nodes” ribbon were changed from green to blue. There’s quite a funny story behind it. One of our team members recently told me that the arrows for moving nodes would point to the wrong direction. I told him that they were absolutely correct and we had quite a discussion. Then we realized that the team member is (red-green) color blind and couldn’t recognize the green arrows properly. Well, now the arrows are blue (see screenshot) and all people should be able to recognize them correctly 🙂

In addition, we did some bug fixes.

(more…)

By Joeran Beel, ago

Searching and filtering via 2-dimensional tags (i.e. attributes): One of Docear’s most powerful features

One of Docear’s most unique feature is its “single-section” user-interface, which allows a highly effective organization of your PDFs, references, and notes. When you want to look-up some information you browse through your data, and usually you should be able to find what you are looking for quite fast. However, sometimes browsing your data is not ideal and you want to search over the papers’ full-text or meta data (title, author, …), or you want to use (social) tags to classify your papers.

Unfortunately, there is one problem about tags: they are one-dimensional. Imagine, you wanted to do a literature survey about recommender systems, and you have dozens of papers about this topic. Some of the papers’ authors evaluated their recommender system with user studies, some with offline experiments, and some with online experiments. The user studies were conducted with with different amounts of participants e.g. one study was conducted with 20 participants, one with 43, and one with 68. With social tags it would be difficult to represent this information. Of course, you could easily add the tag “recommender system” to each of your papers, but how about reflecting the evaluation type? Would you want to create different tags for each evaluation type, i.e. evaluation_user-study, evaluation_offline, evaluation_online? You might do this, but in situations with more than three options this approach would become confusing. You definitely run into a problem when you want to store the amount of study participants via social tags. This simply wouldn’t be possible except maybe you would create tags like no_of_participants_1-10, no_of_participants_11-50, etc.

What you would want to have are “2-dimensional” tags, i.e. one dimension for adding e.g. the tag “evaluation_type” to a paper and one dimension for specifying which evaluation type it is (e.g. “offline evaluation”). In Docear, there are two-dimensional tags, i.e. attribute-value pairs, and these attributes give you much more power than social tags. Here is, how it works:

(more…)

By Joeran Beel, ago

Docear’s users donate $434 in two years (i.e. ~4 Cent per user)

As you probably know, Docear is free and open source. As you might know as well, we do accept donations. Today, we would like to share some statistics with you about the amount of donations we received. Actually, in the past two years, we received 434 US$ (~340€) from from 33 donators. That’s not a lot, given that Docear has several thousands of active users. However, it’s also no surprise and to be honest, we ourselves hardly ever donate for other software tools, so we cannot blame anyone for not donating to Docear (even if he should heavily use it).

The average donation we received was 13.16$ (median was 10$), the highest donation was 50$, the smallest 1$, standard deviation 11.04$. The following chart shows the individual and cumulated donations. Sometimes, we don’t receive any recommendations for several month, sometimes we get multiple ones within a week or so.

(more…)

By Joeran Beel, ago

On the popularity of reference managers, and their rise and fall

This weekend, I had some spare time and I wondered which was the most popular reference manager (and how Docear is doing in comparison). So, I took a list of reference managers from Wikipedia, and checked some statistics on Alexa, Google Trends, and Google Keyword Planner. Since I had the data anyway, I thought I share it with you :-). Please note that this is a quick and dirty analysis. I cannot guarantee that there is not one or two reference managers missing (i just took the list from Wikipedia), and, of course, there are many alternatives to Alexa and Google for measuring the popularity of a reference manager.

(more…)

By Joeran Beel, ago

Docear 1.0 (stable), a new video, new manual, new homepage, new details page, …

Today, Docear 1.0 (stable) is finally available for Windows, Mac, and Linux to ico16download. It’s been almost two years since we released the first private Alpha of Docear and we are really proud of what we accomplished since then. Docear is better than ever, and in addition to all the enhancements we made during the past years, we completely rewrote the manual with step-by-step instructions including an overview of supported PDF viewers, we changed the homepage, we created a new video, and we made the features & details page much more comprehensive. For those who already use Docear 1.0 RC4, there are not many changes (just a few bug fixes). For new users, we would like to explain what Docear is and what makes it so special.

Docear is a unique solution to academic literature management that helps you to organize, create, and discover academic literature. The three most distinct features of Docear are:

  1. A single-section user-interface that differs significantly from the interfaces you know from Zotero, JabRef, Mendeley, Endnote, … and that allows a more comprehensive organization of your electronic literature (PDFs) and the annotations you created (i.e highlighted text, comments, and bookmarks).
  2. A ‘literature suite concept’  that allows you to draft and write your own assignments, papers, theses, books, etc. based on the annotations you previously created.
  3. A research paper recommender system that allows you to discover new academic literature.

Aside from Docear’s unique approach, Docear offers many features more. In particular, we would like to point out that Docear is free, open source, not evil, and Docear gives you full control over your data. Docear works with standard PDF annotations, so you can use your favorite PDF viewer. Your reference data is directly stored as BibTeX (a text-based format that can be read by almost any other reference manager). Your drafts and folders are stored in Freeplane’s XML format, again a text-based format that is easy to process and understood by several other applications. And although we offer several online services such as PDF metadata retrieval, backup space, and online viewer, we do not force you to register. You can just install Docear on your computer, without any registration, and use 99% of Docear’s functionality.

But let’s get back to Docear’s unique approach for literature management…

(more…)

By Joeran Beel, ago

What makes a bad reference manager?

Update 2013-11-11: For some statistical data read On the popularity of reference managers, and their rise and fall
Update 2014-01-15: For a detailed review of Docear and other tools, read Comprehensive Comparison of Reference Managers: Mendeley vs. Zotero vs. Docear

At time of writing these lines, there are 31 reference management tools listed on Wikipedia and there are many attempts to identify the best ones, or even the best one (e.g. here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, … [1]). Typically, reviewers gather a list of features and analyze which reference managers offer most of these features, and hence are the best ones. Unfortunately, each reviewer has its own preferences about which features are important, and so have you: Are many export formats more important than a mobile version? Is it more important to have metadata extraction for PDF files than an import for bibliographic data from academic search engines? Would a thorough manual be more important than free support? How important is a large number of citation styles? Do you need a Search & Replace function? Do you want to create synonyms for term lists (whatever that means)? …?

Let’s face the truth: it’s impossible to determine which of the hundred potential features you really need.

So how can you find the best reference manager? Recently we had an ironic look at the question what the best reference managers are. Today we want to have a more serious analysis, and propose to first identify the bad reference managers, instead of looking for the very best ones. Then, if the bad references managers are found, it should be easier to identify the best one(s) from the few remaining.

What makes a bad – or evil –  reference manager? We believe that there are three no-go ‘features’ that make a reference manager so bad (i.e. so harming in the long run) that you should not use it, even if it possesses all the other features you might need.

1. A “lock-in feature” that prevents you from ever switching to a competitor tool 

A reference manager might offer exactly the features you need, but how about in a few years? Maybe your needs are changing, other reference managers are just becoming better than your current tool, or your boss is telling you that you have to use a specific tool. In this case it is crucial that your current reference manager doesn’t lock you in and allows switching to your new favorite reference managers. Otherwise, you will have a serious problem. You might have had the perfect reference manager for the past one or two years. But then you are bound to the now not-so-perfect tool for the rest of your academic life. To being able to switch to another reference manager, your reference manager should be offering at least one of the following three functions (ideally the first one).

  1. Your data should be stored in a standard format that other reference managers can read
  2. Your reference manager should be able to export your data in a standard format
  3. Your reference manager allows direct access to your data, so other developers can write import filters for it.

(more…)

By Joeran Beel, ago