Question about Reference Management Software--should I use one?

[jerseyjay]

I am a historian.

I have a question about Reference Management Software. I do not use RMS; not because I am afraid of technology, but because the system I have has worked well for me, while writing my PhD, publishing two books and  a bunch of articles. My method is to read books and article on paper, and write out notes on legal pads in cursive using a fountain pen. For newspaper articles, I print them out and put them in a three-ring binder; for archival materials, I use a combination of a file cabinet and legal pads. I don't particularly want to evangelize for my method, but it works well for me. I've tried other methods, but they don't work so well, in the same way I've tried driving an automatic transmission and it doesn't work for me so well as a manual transmission. 

I've tried RMS (especially Zotero) but I've never found them particularly useful, nor have I found any problem with my pre-computer method. I am not opposed to computers (obviously, I am here) and I type my writings on a computer and download and print journal articles with a computer.

However, I have increasingly come across arguments like the following (from Wendy Laura Belcher, Writing Your Journal Article in Twelve Weeks):

It's impossible to overemphasize the importance of such software to your productivity, happiness, and ethical obligations. You simply must use reference-management software (RMS). No ifs, ands, or buts! Once set up, these programs are so much easier to use, not to mention more accurate. Simply highlight a title and download. That's it—no
typing. While citations used to take five hundred seconds to produce by hand, with errors, with
RMS they now take five seconds.

I get the possibility of introducing errors by writing, but the biggest danger for me is introducing errors by reading--something that no software has been able to eliminate. And for me, the process of manually processing research materials (taking notes) is a key part of mentally processing the research materials. The above quote seems to imply that somebody is working off a computer file, not hard copies.

So my question is: is there a reason to use RMS, other than the fact that other people use it? If I am happy with my method, is there a reason to change?

(I am not opposed to technology. I use technology if I think it helps--for example, I post some readings on the CMS instead of making xeroxed course books at the copy center. But I don't use technology if I don't think it helps--I still prefer to write on the chalk board instead of using PowerPoint. Or, as noted, I use a manual transmission, but I also use GPS on my smartphone instead of the old AAA maps.)

[Puget]

I'm in a very different field, but I can't imagine not using software for this. The program I use, Papers, does much more than manage references-- it lets me keep all my articles organized in collections automatically by keyword, makes them fully searchable, lets me highlight and take notes on the PDFs, lets me cite them in any journal style (and switch to a different style if I have to resubmit elsewhere), lets me share them easily with others, etc. It also provides cloud back-up so I can never lose it. I've been using various versions of this software since I started grad school in 2006, and have amassed over 7000 articles in my library during that time-- Not a manageable number with any non-software system.

[Parasaurolophus]

I've been using various versions of this software since I started grad school in 2006, and have amassed over 7000 articles in my library during that time-- Not a manageable number with any non-software system.

That's the clincher for me. I flirted with RMS in grad school, but I didn't care for it at the time. Now, though, I have waaaaaaaaaaaaay too many articles and books hanging around, and I've given up on my hierarchical filing system because it ended up making things harder to find.

So: although I don't have anything to recommend, I'm checking in here, cap in hand. I don't mind generating my own lists of works cited in whatever style (although it can definitely be a pain), but I'm getting desperate for some file organization. Since abandoning my hierarchy, I've resorted to a folder for what I've read and one for what's to read, but that's not ideal.

[ergative]

I think I'm not as good at using my RMS as Puget is, but my philosophy is broadly the same: I can organize references according to which project they're relevant for (or teaching, too--which week are we discussing which articles, which makes lesson planning more frictionless), and I don't have to worry about formatting them or re-formatting them. Sometimes when writing things with page-count restrictions but no style guide I play around with a number of different formatting options to find one that minimizes page count, which is very nice.

It's also really good for lit searches. I don't need to remember which article discussed which topic; I can just look for keywords, and then sort by journal or year published or author. I can easily limit my search to a particular author, too: 'I know Bock wrote about this, but I don't remember where or when--let's just look at only the Bock articles.'

[Hegemony]

I don't use them at all, and I'm pretty prolific. So my conclusion is that either way is fine.

[Ancient Fellow]

Is anyone else put off by claims like that in the article above, This product is a must for fulfilling your ethical obligations?

[traductio]

Is anyone else put off by claims like that in the article above, This product is a must for fulfilling your ethical obligations?

Yeah, that claim is silly on its face. Plenty of scholars before the invention of RMS managed to fulfill their ethical obligations just fine, and I'm convinced that I (who find value in compiling bibliographies by hand and taking notes in paper notebooks) have, too.

[Hibush]

If you are going to do it, use the one that is supported for free by your library. The systems are not so different and the bibliograpies can be exported to other software if you ever need to.

I started using Reference Management Software in 1983, when everything was still print. We were able to do that because we switched the second floppy drive for a hard drive when that became possible. The process of entering the information as one read and digested the article is what made it stick. Nowadays I just add the articles with a click from an online database search, completely undigested, so that I can add it to the bibliography of articles and have that format precisely according to the specifications the journal provides.

[traductio]

A question for those of you who use an RMS: can they deal with the arbitrary capitalization rules for titles imposed by different reference styles? APA, for instance, requires sentence-style capitalization for article titles, while Chicago (my fav) capitalizes all words except for conjunctions and articles.

I've never bothered to find out, in part because I find the act of compiling a bibliography usefully mindless -- it occupies just enough of my mind to let ideas work themselves out somewhere in my subconscious. I can see the value of being able to search by keyword, but I suspect that even if I adopted an RMS, I'd still do bibliographies by hand.

[Hibush]

A question for those of you who use an RMS: can they deal with the arbitrary capitalization rules for titles imposed by different reference styles? APA, for instance, requires sentence-style capitalization for article titles, while Chicago (my fav) capitalizes all words except for conjunctions and articles.

I've never bothered to find out, in part because I find the act of compiling a bibliography usefully mindless -- it occupies just enough of my mind to let ideas work themselves out somewhere in my subconscious. I can see the value of being able to search by keyword, but I suspect that even if I adopted an RMS, I'd still do bibliographies by hand.

The RMS does all that at the output stage. Each journal provides a set of rules, and the software makes the data fit that format. Your personal database is stored in a generic format.


Here is an example of how you would select references for your bibliography and output them in the journal style.
https://guides.library.fresnostate.edu/endnote/output
It is literally four simple steps: click on the articles you want, select the journal or format you want, copy and paste.

Why would you do that manually?

[traductio]

A question for those of you who use an RMS: can they deal with the arbitrary capitalization rules for titles imposed by different reference styles? APA, for instance, requires sentence-style capitalization for article titles, while Chicago (my fav) capitalizes all words except for conjunctions and articles.

I've never bothered to find out, in part because I find the act of compiling a bibliography usefully mindless -- it occupies just enough of my mind to let ideas work themselves out somewhere in my subconscious. I can see the value of being able to search by keyword, but I suspect that even if I adopted an RMS, I'd still do bibliographies by hand.

The RMS does all that at the output stage. Each journal provides a set of rules, and the software makes the data fit that format. Your personal database is stored in a generic format.

Here is an example of how you would select references for your bibliography and output them in the journal style.
https://guides.library.fresnostate.edu/endnote/output
It is literally four simple steps: click on the articles you want, select the journal or format you want, copy and paste.

Why would you do that manually?

Thanks.

As for why I'd do it manually, it's because -- for me, at least -- compiling a bibliography has a usefully meditative quality, especially for book-length projects. (I'm a humanities-oriented communication scholar.) I often establish the bibliography as I think through the structure of an argument -- making my list helps me think through organization, flow, and so on.

I suspect that most people approach bibliographies very differently! My grad students often send me drafts with things like "[REFERENCE HERE]" in their texts, which drives me bonkers. I tell them I want to see the reference, not a meta-reference. That's never an issue when I write because I always have the running bibliography.

[ergative]

I suspect that most people approach bibliographies very differently! My grad students often send me drafts with things like "[REFERENCE HERE]" in their texts, which drives me bonkers. I tell them I want to see the reference, not a meta-reference. That's never an issue when I write because I always have the running bibliography.

I sometimes do [REFERENCE HERE] because I know that in the depths of my articles folder somewhere I have that one study by that one woman who showed that [phenomenon], but I don't want to lose the flow of crafting the argument [question]--> [phenomenon] --> [other phenomenon] --> [connection??] --> [hypothesis]. So I remind myself I still need to cite [phenomenon] and then keep going.

As for runnng bibliographies, my reference manager (Mendeley) integrates really nicely with Word and LaTeX, so I can just type the citation key--which I've set generate automatically to lastnameYear any time I add a new reference--and then I get the reference in text, and the bibliography at the end updates by itself.

[traductio]

I suspect that most people approach bibliographies very differently! My grad students often send me drafts with things like "[REFERENCE HERE]" in their texts, which drives me bonkers. I tell them I want to see the reference, not a meta-reference. That's never an issue when I write because I always have the running bibliography.

I sometimes do [REFERENCE HERE] because I know that in the depths of my articles folder somewhere I have that one study by that one woman who showed that [phenomenon], but I don't want to lose the flow of crafting the argument [question]--> [phenomenon] --> [other phenomenon] --> [connection??] --> [hypothesis]. So I remind myself I still need to cite [phenomenon] and then keep going.

I suspect that's what my students do, too, and I'm always encouraging them to harness whatever flow works best for their writing. (I also suspect that not everyone finds bibliographies as meditative as I do.) I think in my students' case, though, I just wish they'd go back and fill in the reference by the time they send me a draft!

[Puget]

I suspect that most people approach bibliographies very differently! My grad students often send me drafts with things like "[REFERENCE HERE]" in their texts, which drives me bonkers. I tell them I want to see the reference, not a meta-reference. That's never an issue when I write because I always have the running bibliography.

I sometimes do [REFERENCE HERE] because I know that in the depths of my articles folder somewhere I have that one study by that one woman who showed that [phenomenon], but I don't want to lose the flow of crafting the argument [question]--> [phenomenon] --> [other phenomenon] --> [connection??] --> [hypothesis]. So I remind myself I still need to cite [phenomenon] and then keep going.

As for runnng bibliographies, my reference manager (Mendeley) integrates really nicely with Word and LaTeX, so I can just type the citation key--which I've set generate automatically to lastnameYear any time I add a new reference--and then I get the reference in text, and the bibliography at the end updates by itself.

Same on both.

I always use "CITE" for these, so I can do a search and easily find the places I need to fill in citations. Usually this is for background info, where I know I have review articles in my collection I can cite for that point, and just don't want to take the time in the moment to find and insert the actual citations.

[sinenomine]

Like other posters above, I prefer to do my bibliographies and notes myself, and have a combo hard copy/digital method for tracking my sources and ideas. I work in an interdisciplinary humanities field, so source types can be quite varied, from books and articles to primary sources like manuscripts and art. My organizing them and taking care of citation/documentation myself helps my organize my thoughts.