After a few months of private testing, Mendeley announced the public release of their open API. This will allow developers and researchers to build applications and data analysis on top of a massive database of human-annotated scientific references.

We are excited to see our friends at Mendeley push forward on the open science front by making their database accessible to third parties and I look forward to seeing what developers will build on top of this data goldmine. In the meantime, check out the Mendeley Developer Portal or follow the dedicated twitter account for updates.

Imagine a world where real-time search is the norm. You will get just the information you seek landing on your lap the exact minute it becomes available, without you having to explicitly search for it. Will this change the way you do science? SciSurfer thinks it will.

The release cycle of scientific knowledge is slow. It may take up to 2 years for a paper to get accepted in a journal. The publishing process in itself will add a buffer of a few months (arguably because of the time cost of having a paper edition, even though most people will never use it). So, for some of us, it doesn’t feel like we are missing much if we do not get the latest updates on our field the very same minute they are published. Just going to conferences yearly feels like more than enough. But there is a portion of the academia that needs constant updates on their field, as close to real-time as possible. If you are in the life sciences, getting the latest paper about a molecule or a gene you work on before your competitor does may make or break your career.

For those academics, sciSurfer may be a very valuable tool. The basic idea of sciSurfer is to integrate all journal feeds and search over them. Note that they do not archive RSS, so only the latest articles are available. This is a different way to think about search, closer to twitter’s than to Google’s.

In use

If you are used to RSS feed readers, the interface will look familiar. Left side there’s a list of journals and searches. Every time there’s a new unread item the containing ‘folder’ turns bold. On the right side there’s a list of articles (title, authors, and abstract). The journal it comes from is shown in green. The interface resembles Google reader (in fact, sciSurfer is built on app engine, so it may share code with reader).

What is the advantage of scisurfer over simply subscribing to the RSS feed of the journals? Search. Scisurfer does searches over all the journals they are indexing. This is pretty impressive, because I don’t know of any search engine that works on RSS feeds. Using an RSS reader, the equivalent to scisurfer would be to subscribe to the RSS of all journals, and apply searches over those. This is beyond the capabilities of most destop RSS readers. Implementing search by author, abstract, etc is also beyond the feature set of a normal RSS reader. In fact, it’s not that easy to deal with author names. We all have had the experience of getting papers by people with the same lastname and initials as our intended query term that are NOT the person we are looking for. Thomson Reuters has a solution: researcher ID. Researcher ID is based on the simple idea that each individual would get a unique identification (ID) number acting as a digital “calling card” that the researcher can place anywhere, such as a personal home page, a CV, or a university page. It has been out for more than two years now, so it’s still too early to say whether it has been adopted successfully.

Apart from the reader, there are two other tools, news and journals. Searching journals by name integrates the RSS feeds of otherwise disperse journals. Still, I haven’t found a good use for this tool.

Navigating trends

The main use I can think of for sciSurfer is monitoring Trending topics. We are getting used to explosions in popularity thanks to twitter and Facebook updates. Good twitter clients show you ‘what’s hot’ together with an explanation on why. Even Mendeley is getting status updates these days, making it look more and more like ‘facebook for scientists’.

There are several things to like about sciSurfer.  It integrates with your Google account, so it’s one less login to remember. The devs show that they are on top of things and the result is a fast turnaround when I requested changes. They are very open about feature requests. In my experience, when a journal was not in sciSurfer’s list, the devs added it within hours.

But by far the best result of using sciSurfer is that it makes you aware of what is going on in your field in a way that feels different and pleasant. The most similar feeling that I got online is when I found a neat Phd. student tagging articles in citeUlike that are relevant for me (it’s like finding a gold mine).

Mendeley uses a similar real-time approach in their statistics. For example, they show what are the most read papers per discipline at a given point in time.

I’m not sure one can do searches according to popularity just yet on any of these tools, implementing a real-time soft peer review.

How does sciSurfer plan to make money? The free tool is limited to ten saved searches. They will charge for extra functionality. There’s an iPhone version coming, which may well be another source of funds.

Conclusion

As the number of publications grows, it becomes more and more difficult to follow the latest scientific trends. The approach that sciSurfer takes is that if you know your keywords then it should be trivial to filter the fire hose of information, by doing a trivial keyword match. While keyword match could go a long way, I’m skeptical that the future of search lies in dumb matching. The way I currently filter information is very social, that is, I’m surrounded by people I respect and I ‘feel’ what they believe is good research. If I’m like most researchers, then social filtering would be a natural fit. However, I rarely get value from social networks online (science-wise; no matter how hard social networks try to capture my attention!). It may well be that to form a reputation, scientists need to do far more than posting interesting updates in their microblogging feeds. And for us to follow their recommendations…

The first public beta of Paperpile–the latest entry in the crowded arena of free reference management software–has been recently announced. As I write, a test version is available for Linux, but Mac and Windows versions should be released soon. From the screenshots gallery, it looks like Paperpile will feature a streamlined (although quite typical) 3-column interface, support for tags/labels as well as the standard Web import functionality from online bibliographic databases.

It will be interesting to see how this software compares with cross-platform biggies such as Mendeley or established tools for specific environments such as BibDesk or JabRef.

Citation copy-editing is one of those deceptively small burdens that have a way of taking over the working day. If left untended, the task of tidying up casually scribbled references can snowball to crisis proportions as a submission deadline approaches. Similarly, when a submission to one publisher is unsuccessful, significant effort may be required to recast its citations in the format required by another. Collaboration outside of one’s own field can bring with it an unwelcome tangle of fresh style-guide quandaries to ponder and fight through. These are things that the machines, if they want to make themselves useful, should be doing for us.

There is plenty of collective experience in this line, and as fate would have it, there are also plenty of collective solutions. In the TeX/LaTeX world, authors and their editors can today choose between BibTeX and BibLaTeX — both of them excellent utilities — with the several variants of the former supported by no fewer than four separate versions of the BibTeX program. [1] Users of WYSIWYG word processors can look to the bibliographic support built into Word or Open Office, or they can turn to an external solution such as EndNote ™, ProCite ™, Reference Manager ™, or more recently Zotero or Mendeley. Migrating data between these environments is a process fraught with uncertainty, but it is sometimes unavoidable when you need this kind of output, and it can only be produced on that kind of system …

… with so many solutions to choose from, it’s hard to go right. [2]

The citeproc-js citation processor is a Javascript implementation of the Citation Style Language (CSL), an XML schema for describing citation styles that aspires to strike this problem at its root. CSL is a general, open standard that enables fully modular control over bibliographic formatting. This means that CSL is capable of accurately describing styles used in many disciplines, from the sciences, through the humanities to law. It also means that a CSL style description can be used with any other application that understands the CSL language. And it means that the style description is separated to the extent possible from the target document; you can switch styles at any time, even after the writing process is complete. Generality, a comprehensive pooling of community resources, user-centric ease of use: all areas where, collectively, our current menagerie of productivity tools could do better.

CSL first saw wide application in the Zotero project. [3] Citeproc-js has been developed in the first instance for use in Zotero, [4] but it runs as a separate module via a (relatively) simple API, and with appropriate wrappers, it can be deployed pretty much anywhere. Potentially, any application that generates dynamic content — text processors, word processors, weblog environments, and dynamic websites — can use CSL and citeproc-js to provide publisher-correct citation and bibliography facilities without exceptional programming effort. [5]

Development of the CSL language has been spearheaded by Bruce D’Arcus. The citeproc-js processor adheres to version 1.0 of the CSL specification, [6] which has been engineered and documented during the past year primarily by Bruce and Rintze Zelle, with incidental contributions by myself and others. It will debut, together with the new processor, in Zotero 2.1, which should begin to emerge, if all goes well, during this calendar year.

Meanwhile, the processor itself is complete, documented, and more or less ready to go. [7] Here is a short run-down of some of the highlights:

Disambiguation

In author-date citation styles, works by the same author must be distinguished from one another in some way. The current Zotero processor performs name and cite disambiguation as required by the Chicago Manual of Style. There are in fact at least six other disambiguation methods in general use. CSL 1.0 and the new processor will support all of them.

Sorting

The AGU journals, in particular, impose extremely demanding sorting rules in the bibliography. [8] CSL 1.0 and the new processor support multiple sort keys with arbitrary sort order for each key. A wide variety of sorting schemes can be implemented, including the AGU sort.

Parallel citation support

Many legal styles, including the Bluebook style common in American law journals, require that law cases appearing in multiple reporters be cited to each reporter, with the case name in front, and the court and year of decision at the end. [9] The new processor supports this behavior.

On-the-fly document updates

The API of the new processor supports targeted context-sensitive updates of citations in a document that are affected by an insertion, deletion or edit, for efficient transactions with a word-processor or weblog plugin.

Localization of dates

CSL version 0.8 currently supports the use of localized terms for style-supplied labels and the like. CSL 1.0 will add sophisticated localization of dates; both the language of month names and the ordering and formatting of elements will adjust appropriately when the language of a citation style is changed.

Sophisticated names handling

A great deal of work has gone into enhancing the handling of names in CSL 1.0. European conventions on the handling of particles such as “von”, “van”, “di” and the like can be accounted for appropriately both in the sorting and in the rendering of individual names.

In-field formatting

For scientific publishing, the new processor recognizes a limited subset of HTML as markup within titles, enabling superscript, subscript, small capitals, italics, boldface. The processor also implements the flip-flopping of italic and boldface, and of quotation marks, to avoid ambiguity in rendered citations. The HTML used in markup is transformed by the processor into the selected output format (HTML, RTF, LaTeX, or whatever) during rendering.

Multi-lingual citation support

The new processor implements experimental support for multi-lingual citations, providing a flexible mechanism for the transliteration of names and titles, for the supplementary translation of titles, and for the use of alternative sort strings needed for Asian languages.

As it leaves my laptop, citeproc-js is just a bare Javascript module with some test suite wrappers to check that it actually performs as advertised. But with the widening availability and increasing efficiency of Javascript runtime tools, I do hope that it has some prospect of escaping from its cage and wreaking order on the world of bibliography management. If you’re an integrator or site administrator, the fine citeproc-js manual is your first point of reference. If you’re an end user, keep an eye out for the CSL mark, coming soon (maybe) to an application near you!

Springer launched yesterday a new service allowing users to search, browse, annotate and reuse scientific images from their huge database of publications.

SpringerImages is a growing collection of scientific images that spans the scientific, technical and medical fields, including high-quality clinical images from images.MD. The continually updated collection – currently over 1.5 million images – gathers photos, graphs, histograms, figures, and tables, and is available to libraries and their patrons via a searchable online database. The SpringerImages interface enables users to search faster, more broadly and more accurately, through captions, keywords, context and more, even jumping from the image to the source article. Users can create personalized image “sets,” and can easily export images for use in their own presentations or lectures.

The service offers a range of potentially innovative features.

Being able to search, organise and download high quality images as PDF from a large corpus of books and journals might represent a breakthrough in the dissemination and reuse of non-textual content from the scientific literature. Usage factors related to images may provide additional metrics of scientific impact for authors and journal editors. From the end user’s point of view, the collaborative annotation functionality is an interesting addition, although it may not be obvious to convince users to massively start tagging and annotating images. Last but not least, a prominent button allows users to bookmark images via CiteULike (a Springer partner) in the same way as references (images available from SpringerImages will be the displayed as thumbnails from the correspondent article page). It is worth reporting details on the access conditions, as the full availability of the service (in particular access to full-resolution images) is tied to Springer’s institutional subscriptions. The set of freely accessible images is–helas–a tiny portion of the complete database.

Anyone can create an account and search the free and Open Access images indexed by SpringerImages. Access to the complete collection is available via subscription to libraries, research institutions and individuals. Images obtained from SpringerImages can be used for almost all noncommercial purposes, including integration into presentations and PDF documents.

Maybe I’m getting out of touch, but it’s only now that I found sciencewatch. It’s a service of Thomson Reuters (the makers of Web of Science) that collects and displays statistics on recent trends in science. Example:

Aug 2008 – SCHOLARLY USE OF THE WORLD WIDE WEB – Research Front Map – ScienceWatch.com

This is a citation network that shows highly cited papers on WWW. Diameter relates to citation: the two bigger circles are the paper that proposed the Hirsch index, and King’s paper on the scientific impact of nations. Clicking on the circles provides details on the papers.

There are many other fronts:

• Fast Breaking papers. These papers comprise the top 1% of papers in each field and each year
• Top Topics selects the Research Fronts with the largest absolute increase in size in each of the 22 major fields covered by Essential Science Indicators

Worth keeping an eye on.

Frankly, there are too many reference managers today. This  is counterproductive because we all need to spend time checking the newcomers, just in case there’s a new feature that we were missing.

Most reference managers graft themselves to word or to openOffice. For example, Mendeley, and zotero both use internal reference functionality in word. In doing so, they use features that are available only on those editors. I think this is a big error for at least 3 reasons:

1. I draft my papers on a text editor or oneNote. This has a lot of advantages for me. But I would not be able to use say Mendeley or Zotero on oneNote; and I do want to keep references on my notetaking tool. Using a text editor has a lot of nice advantages over a word processor too, if you know how to use it.
2. It’s a lot faster to massage your reference the way you like it. It takes several clicks on zotero to get an Author (year, p. XX) reference. In endNote, it’d be a few keystrokes.
3. There are bottlenecks in our digital lives that are plain text. For example, emails, forum posts, and google docs are cases of writing that may need reference management but are ill-served by most current offerings. I want to copy-paste chunks of scientific writing and still carry my references; there’s life outside word processors, and quite a lot of it!

So what reference managers work ok on plain text. Well, here is the surprise: as far as I know, only bibTeX and endnote. This is surprising because they are the oldest. One would have thought that newcomers would have taken advantage of what these older tools learned.

Lurking in the Zotero forums, I saw people asking for support of this exact feature. But it seems that it’s never going to happen. It would take a lot of reengineering, and all users that are happy with the current solution (and have amassed a large body of authored docs) would complain.

so, where does this leave me? I need to either comply and write everything in word to take advantage of Mendeley and Zotero, or stick to oneNote, but use endNote references. Of course I could also do everything on a text editor and use bibTeX, but right now, it’s more trouble than it’s worth.

Does anyone know a good solution for my setting?

Exciting that an anonymous donor jumped in:

Donate to CHNM in June and your contribution will be matched twice over. Thanks to a challenge grant from the National Endowment for the Humanities, the Center for History and New Media has the rare opportunity to build a $3 million endowment to support infrastructure expenses and ongoing development across its many projects. We’re delighted to announce that now your contribution to the Center for History and New Media will be matched for a limited time. If you give within the month of June your donation will be stretched even further since an anonymous donor has agreed to double the National Endowment for the Humanities matching funds.

If you or your institution used/still pays hundred of dollars per seat on other bibliography manager, consider donations of similar size. If you can raise awareness in your institution, please do so. Zotero is a project that benefits all (Open source) and has been legally attacked (in a childish way) by Thomson before.

Zotero Blog » Blog Archive » Help Zotero by Donating to the Center For History and New Media

It should be no surprise that many of us love Zotero, especially since they added support for reference sharing and synchronization.

I am probably the only exception in the AP team. As a longstanding MacTeX user, I keep my references organised with BibDesk, one of the sweetest pieces of (open source) software ever written for TeX users working on Mac OS. When hunting for references, I use CiteULike as a fast and effective solution to bookmark and tag papers. My workflow usually starts with an exploratory phase based on CiteULike. As soon as I have read a paper and need to cite it, I export its reference from CiteULike into BibDesk, filing the PDFs with the help of the autofile functionality in BibDesk. So far I have been quite happy with this workflow even if it involves a little bit of fiddling to correctly import references into my local library.

After some research and discussion in the support forums, I discovered that CiteULike and BibDesk can seamlessly integrate with each other. BibDesk has an external file group option that allows you to read structured references from any online source. CiteULike has a bibtex export feature that allows you to expose your references for consumption by software like BibDesk. This is all you need to get the two to work together. Here’s how my new workflow looks like:

1. Create a new external file group in BibDesk

Click on the cog icon on the bottom left of the BibDesk window and select “Add External File Group”. This will add a new folder in your library pointing to a remote source.

2. Point the new group folder to CiteULike

CiteULike can generate bibtex files on-the-fly from any reference list, e.g. your reference library, the list of papers for a specific author, papers tagged with a specific keyword etc. The bibtex export filter for any of these lists can be obtained by adding the /bibtex prefix to the corresponding URL. For instance, to export in bibtex format my full reference library:

http://citeulike.org/user/dartar/

I simply need to type the following URL:

http://citeulike.org/bibtex/user/dartar/

The following URL parameters are a useful addition:

• fieldmap=<oldval>:<newval> allows you to specify translation rules for custom fields, e.g. record creation date (what CiteULike calls Posted-At must be translated to BibDesk’s Date-Added)
• do_username_prefix=0&key_type=4 toggles an option to create bibtex keys using an AuthorYearTitle scheme when none is available (which I prefer to the default numeric key)

The final URL we will use is the following:

http://citeulike.org/bibtex/user/dartar?fieldmap=posted-at:date-added&do_username_prefix=0&key_type=4

3. Browse your CiteULike library from BibDesk

Once you have pointed BibDesk to the URL of the CiteULike bibtex filter, you can start directly browsing your CiteULike library from BibDesk. You will see an “Import” button on the left of each item, which is greyed out when the reference is already imported in your local BibDesk library.

4. Import selected items

Click on “Import” to download a reference and file it in your local BibDesk library: you are done!

There is definitely room for further improvement (in particular to allow bidirectional sync’ing of references and PDFs and custom bibtex keys in CiteULike), but this solution will save you a lot of time when working with references between a local and a remote library. Kudos to the BibDesk and CiteULike team for being so responsive to feature requests from their user community!

On a related note, if you are a Mendeley user, you will be happy to learn that today their integration with CiteULike is finally seeing the light.

The general agreement is that mail is broken. We all use it but kind of hate it too. Well, it seems that Google came up with a very good alternative (ambitious, and technically impressive): Google Wave.

A long video of Wave’s capabilities here.

It’s very long at 1:20hrs, but worth it. It’s peppered with random bouts of applause, something I’ve never seen in a scientific/technical presentation before. About minute 1:04, Lars Rasmussen presents real-time translation and he gets about a minute of standing ovation.

Why is this important for academics? Looks like sending a word document back and forth with version numbers in the file name is no fun. And setting a VCS with a bunch of .tex files plus figures is not much better (mainly because doing diffs on LaTeX files is pretty horrible). One could always convince a collaborator to use Google Docs, but then you have no way to use a proper reference manager, figures are a mess, etc. In short, scientific paper collaboration is not really pleasant right now.

In fact, it might be more appealing than desktop equivalents (say MS word) to write papers with collaborators, and better than a long thread of mails to simply organize a dinner out. So I won’t be surprised if many people jump on this as soon as it’s out. Wave is solving so many problems so well that it’ll be a rotund success. Here’s the interface:

The basically new thing is that you can see your collaborator typing away in real time, maybe in different parts of your manuscript. Although similar things have been around for a while (see for example etherpad), the way Wave integrates with other google offerings such as chat/email –may well be enough to gain adoption.

Wave supports images, and more editing features in general than etherpad.

One thing we get for free is version control: you can even move a slider to see how changes happened in your document. It’s pretty spectacular.

While Wave won’t be out for a while, there are developer accounts where one can sign up and get a preview.

Surprising: It’s open source, both client and server (!). I have no idea how they plan to disentangle the server side from the rest of Google’s infrastructure… Unless they ask you to reproduce all of part of it on your server – which is unlikely- I’m not sure how you could get this thing running.