[转帖]Summary of Endnote versus Biblioscape
<P><a href="http://eis.bris.ac.uk/~ccmjs/endnote.htm" target="_blank" >http://eis.bris.ac.uk/~ccmjs/endnote.htm</A></P><P>Summary of Endnote versus Biblioscape</P>
<P>(full evaluation to be found in<BR><a href="http://eis.bris.ac.uk/~ccmjs/rmeval99.htm" target="_blank" >http://eis.bris.ac.uk/~ccmjs/rmeval99.htm</A> )</P>
<P>To help you to choose between Biblioscape and Endnote (David and Goliath<BR>syndrome) as a replacement for Papyrus:</P>
<P>Endnote advantages:</P>
<P>several people in the University already using it<BR>better known product so formats for import often include Endnote format<BR>smart parsing of author name on import, but so does Biblioscape<BR>z39.50 so if the reference supplier supports this protocol the selected<BR>references go straight into the Endnote database without the users having to<BR>import them (but ISI Web of Science do not have this connection). Aleph<BR>supports Z39.50 and so this would be attractive to academics and students<BR>alike. In fact, most library systems now support Z39.50 so this is a definite<BR>plus in academic environment.<BR>license also covers Reference Manager and Procite (but not possible for<BR>Computing Service to support these too so would tell people to use Endnote if<BR>they wanted a better quality of support from me)<BR>works on Mac, 3.1, NT etc with same version on different op systems so can<BR>swap info between diff op systems even though using same package (unlike<BR>Reference Manager and ProCite)<BR>works with either Internet Explorer or Netscape- should open URL if<BR>preferences set properly<BR>disadvantages:</P>
<P>poor search facilities<BR>lookup lists not intuitive and not updated automatically (now improved in<BR>version 4)<BR>have to pay extra for WEb Poster- which is used to browse databases via web<BR>browser (works with either Netscape or Microsoft IE)<BR>concurrent nw access read only<BR>Biblioscape advantages:</P>
<P>nice web interface to find external databases<BR>database can be held in Oracle, Access etc<BR>good choice of search facilities and very powerful and intuitive<BR>concurrent rw nw access<BR>disadvantages:</P>
<P>small supplier<BR>not so many users so perhaps there may be support issues. However, all my<BR>technical queries were answered very quickly, and where necessary, the<BR>software was changed within days so they are very responsive to change. All<BR>emails and user forum postings are answered within one day. Visit<BR><a href="http://www.biblioscape.com/user_comments.htm" target="_blank" >http://www.biblioscape.com/user_comments.htm</A> to see some user comments. Visit<BR>the user forum at <a href="http://128.192.2.200:8002/bw_forum" target="_blank" >http://128.192.2.200:8002/bw_forum</A> to see how fast a<BR>posting is answered.<BR>have to use Internet explorer to use web browser. (Biblioscape has an<BR>integrated web browser which requires the presence of IE to be able to<BR>directly load into Biblioscape. If user has Netscape only, he or she has to<BR>save the browser content as text file, then import that file into<BR>Biblioscape. So there is one extra step.)<BR>only on NT, 95 and 98, ME, 2000 (not 3.1 or Mac)<BR>no z39.50 link<BR>Summary</P>
<P>The advantages of Endnote probably outweigh those of Biblioscape<BR>-particularly if the latter does not run on the Mac, even though I prefer the<BR>capabilities of Biblioscape<BR>It is probably best to standardise within the academic community - would make<BR>it easier to swap references etc.<BR>Better to support something that is already being used rather than asking<BR>users to swap into something new. The users will offer too much resistance,<BR>even if I tell them that I prefer Biblioscape.<BR>what I really want is for Papyrus to be upgraded!</P>
页:
[1]