Citation managers (also known as citation management software, reference managers etc.),
are available to help you collect, organize, cite and share references and sources (e.g. full-text articles).
"Many students struggle when citing sources in their research papers and have turned to web-based citation tools in increasing numbers" (Homol, 2014, p.552). |
Citation managers allow you to:
There are many different citation management programs available and many offer a freely available option.
Zotero offers a plug-in for Google Docs.
EndNote offers a journal matching feature, known as Manuscript Matcher, to help users find the right journal for their manuscripts.
Key questions for choosing a citation manager:
Ease of Use / Usability |
|
Operating system
|
|
Help
|
|
Compatibility
|
|
Costs
|
|
What features should my reference management software offer? |
|
Where do I usually work?
|
|
Adapted from Universitätsbibliothek der Technischen Universität München (2016). "Answers to many of the following questions can be found in the software comparison document. However, some question will be answered only by testing the programme yourself."
Detailed comparisons of citation managers can be found online and as published journal articles.
Table 1: Citation Management Tools at a Glance
Adapted from: Ivey, C., & Crum, J. (2018). Choosing the right citation management tool: EndNote, Mendeley, RefWorks, or Zotero. Journal of the Medical Library Association: JMLA, 106(3), 399.
EndNote | Mendeley | Zotero | |
Platforms | Mac, Windows | Mac, Windows, Linux | Mac, Windows, Linux |
Browsers | Internet Explorer (IE), Firefox, Chrome, Safari | IE, Firefox, Chrome, Safari | Firefox, Chrome, Safari |
Browser plug-ins | IE (Windows only) and Firefox (Windows and Mac) | IE, Firefox, Chrome, Safari | Firefox, Chrome, and Safari |
Mobile apps | iOS (iPad only) | Android, iOS | None; mobile-friendly site available |
Word processing integration | Microsoft Word (Windows and Mac) |
Microsoft Word (Windows and Mac), LibreOffice (Linux, Mac, and Windows) | Microsoft Word (Windows and Mac), Libre Office (Linux, Mac, and Windows), [now compatible with Google Docs as well] |
Importing references | Refer/BibIX, tab delimited, RIS, ISI-CE, filters for hundreds of databases | BibTeX, EndNote, XML, RIS, Zotero library, txt, Ovid (Medlars reprint), PubMed/MEDLINE (nbib), Mendeley web catalog | Bibliontology RDF, BibTeX browser bookmarks, Citavi 5 XML, CSL JSON, EndNote XML, MAB2, MARC, MARCXML, PubMed/MEDLINE (nbib), MODS, Ovid tagged, Primo normalized XML, PubMed XML, RDF, Refer/BibIX, RefWorks tagged, RIS, Web of Science tagged, XML ContextObject |
Add reference by identifier | Available by searching external databases in application | ArXiv ID, DOI, PMID | ISBN, DOI, PMID |
Offline availability | Yes, references and files stored locally | Yes, references and files stored locally |
Yes, references and files stored locally |
Retraction alerts | Yes, integrates with the Retraction Watch database | To be confirmed | Yes, integrates with the Retraction Watch database |
A recent research study evaluated the performance of default de-duplication settings in the citation managers EndNote desktop X9, Mendeley, and Zotero, as well as in systematic review software programs (see table below). For citation managers, Mendeley performed the best, followed by Zotero.
EndNote X9 identified a lot of duplicates that were not true duplicates (false positives), and missed identifying many true duplicates (false negatives). If using EndNote X9, it is highly recommended that you review any duplicates identified before hitting the delete button. Unpublished data evaluating the performance of EndNote 20 with the same sample of references shows a substantial improvement compared to EndNote X9 (to be presented by Sandra McKeown at the Medical Library Association conference in May 2021).
If you need to de-duplicate large batches of search results for the purpose of conducting knowledge syntheses, it is highly recommended that you take advantage of the systematic review software program Covidence, which the library provides access to.
Table: Accuracy, Sensitivity and Specificity of default algorithms for each de-duplication method, presented with 95% confidence intervals
|
Accuracy |
Sensitivity |
Specificity |
EndNote X9 |
0.76 (0.75, 0.78) |
0.57 (0.54, 0.60) |
0.89 (0.88, 0.90) |
Mendeley |
0.93 (0.92, 0.94) |
0.84 (0.82, 0.86) |
0.99 (0.986, 0.995) |
Zotero |
0.80 (0.79, 0.82) |
0.52 (0.49, 0.54) |
0.99 (0.98, 0.993) |
Covidence |
0.96 (0.95, 0.97) |
0.90 (0.89, 0.92) |
1.00 (0.996, 1.00) |
Rayyan |
0.97 (0.96, 0.974) |
0.96 (0.95, 0.97) |
0.97 (0.96, 0.98) |