<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><!-- generator="wordpress/2.1.3" -->
<rss version="2.0" 
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/">
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Refworks promotion in the Netherlands, or: what criteria for bibliographic management software?</title>
	<link>http://www.jeroenbosman.nl/blog/?p=6</link>
	<description>coming to grips with information chaos, possibly making it worse</description>
	<pubDate>Mon, 06 Sep 2010 04:49:55 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.1.3</generator>

	<item>
		<title>By: Criteria voor bibliografisch beheer &#171; Dee&#8217;tjes</title>
		<link>http://www.jeroenbosman.nl/blog/?p=6#comment-10</link>
		<author>Criteria voor bibliografisch beheer &#171; Dee&#8217;tjes</author>
		<pubDate>Sat, 21 Apr 2007 07:26:21 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.jeroenbosman.nl/blog/?p=6#comment-10</guid>
					<description>[...] Zat 21 Apr 2007 Criteria voor bibliografisch&#160;beheer Posted by Dee under Research&#160;  Jeroen Bosman heeft een interessant artikel geschreven in Infopinio over de criteria waaraan programma&#8217;s voor bibliografisch beher moeten voldoen: Refworks promotion in the Netherlands, or: what criteria for bibliographic management software? [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[&#8230;] Zat 21 Apr 2007 Criteria voor bibliografisch&nbsp;beheer Posted by Dee under Research&nbsp;  Jeroen Bosman heeft een interessant artikel geschreven in Infopinio over de criteria waaraan programma&#8217;s voor bibliografisch beher moeten voldoen: Refworks promotion in the Netherlands, or: what criteria for bibliographic management software? [&#8230;]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Earl Beutler</title>
		<link>http://www.jeroenbosman.nl/blog/?p=6#comment-11</link>
		<author>Earl Beutler</author>
		<pubDate>Mon, 23 Apr 2007 18:05:46 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.jeroenbosman.nl/blog/?p=6#comment-11</guid>
					<description>(First...full disclosure.  I am the CEO of RefWorks)

This blog entry is a very insightful summary of important criteria for choosing a bibliographic management program.  In particular, your contrast of a RefWorks trial vs. a content trial really gets to the core of a problem for many institutions.  Using a program like RefWorks (or any bibliographic software) requires a commitment of time and effort from the user, which one is not likely to make if one is unsure whether the program will remain available.  Then, if one uses usage to evaluate a trial, the classic "chicken or the egg" situtation arises.

RefWorks usage is very high at institutions that have 1) purchased a subscription; and 2) broadly exposed their community to its existence.  For example, Arizona State University has over 15,000 user accounts.

Thanks for your blog (and for listening to my reply).</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>(First&#8230;full disclosure.  I am the CEO of RefWorks)</p>
<p>This blog entry is a very insightful summary of important criteria for choosing a bibliographic management program.  In particular, your contrast of a RefWorks trial vs. a content trial really gets to the core of a problem for many institutions.  Using a program like RefWorks (or any bibliographic software) requires a commitment of time and effort from the user, which one is not likely to make if one is unsure whether the program will remain available.  Then, if one uses usage to evaluate a trial, the classic &#8220;chicken or the egg&#8221; situtation arises.</p>
<p>RefWorks usage is very high at institutions that have 1) purchased a subscription; and 2) broadly exposed their community to its existence.  For example, Arizona State University has over 15,000 user accounts.</p>
<p>Thanks for your blog (and for listening to my reply).</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Zotero User</title>
		<link>http://www.jeroenbosman.nl/blog/?p=6#comment-12</link>
		<author>Zotero User</author>
		<pubDate>Tue, 24 Apr 2007 01:54:58 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.jeroenbosman.nl/blog/?p=6#comment-12</guid>
					<description>Have you really looked into Zotero's features or just gone to a seminar sponsored by RefWorks and decided it's the best? Zotero has OpenURL support (compare with SFX), integration with Word and ability to export formatted citations to other word processors, and many import/export options (actually, more than RefWorks). Zotero looks like iTunes and is far easier than RefWorks for new users to pick up. Unlike RefWorks, it is also free (as in no cost and open source). It can grab citations (with just a single click) from thousands of websites and databases--far more than RefWorks. And the Zotero server (available soon) will enable all of the things RefWorks can do and this article's author asks for--sharing, feeds, groups, etc.--again, for free. Zotero is even available in Dutch. So why pay for an inferior, costly product?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Have you really looked into Zotero&#8217;s features or just gone to a seminar sponsored by RefWorks and decided it&#8217;s the best? Zotero has OpenURL support (compare with SFX), integration with Word and ability to export formatted citations to other word processors, and many import/export options (actually, more than RefWorks). Zotero looks like iTunes and is far easier than RefWorks for new users to pick up. Unlike RefWorks, it is also free (as in no cost and open source). It can grab citations (with just a single click) from thousands of websites and databases&#8211;far more than RefWorks. And the Zotero server (available soon) will enable all of the things RefWorks can do and this article&#8217;s author asks for&#8211;sharing, feeds, groups, etc.&#8211;again, for free. Zotero is even available in Dutch. So why pay for an inferior, costly product?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
</channel>
</rss>
