Comparing the bibliographic management softwares: Mendeley, EndNote and Zotero
Keywords:
Comparison, EndNote, Bibliographic management, Mendeley, Bibliographic Reference, ZoteroAbstract
The development of a reliable literature review from relevant previously published studies is imperative to highlight the originality and scientific contributions of research. Due to the large amount of databases and publications available, we need ease-to-use tools that assist reference management in a standardized way. The purpose of this article was to examine three of the most frequently used
bibliographic management softwares by academic researchers: Mendeley, EndNote, and Zotero. The authors sought to highlight the main benefits and difficulties in using the softwares and compared their main features by using a theoretical-conceptual research-based literature as well as critically analyzing the softwares cited by the authors. As a result, it was possible to highlight the
main features of each of the softwares and develop a comparative chart. Considering the characteristics of the three softwares analyzed, it was possible to conclude that all of them have tools that facilitate searching, organizing, and analyzing articles, which can facilitate the work of researchers who use these softwares.
Downloads
References
Berto, R.M.V.S.; Nakano, D.N. A produção científica nos anais do Encontro Nacional de Engenharia de Produção: um levantamento de métodos e tipos de pesquisa. Produção, v.9, n.2, p.65-76, 2000.
Duong, K. Rolling out Zotero across campus as a part of a science librarian’s outreach efforts. Science and Technology Libraries, v.29, n.4, p.315-324, 2010.
Fenner, M. Reference management meets Web 2.0. Cellular Therapy and Transplantation, v.2, n.6, p.1-3, 2010.
Hensley, M.K. Citation management software: Features and futures. Reference & User Services Quarterly, v.50, n.3, p.204-208, 2011.
Marchiori, P.Z. et al. Aspectos estruturais e motivacionais e possíveis zoneamentos discursivos em software social acadêmico. Liinc em Revista, v.6, n.2, p.355-369, 2010.
Miguel, P.A.C. (Org.). Metodologia de pesquisa em engenharia de produção e gestão de operações. Rio de Janeiro: Elsevier, 2010.
Mugnaini, R. A bibliometria na exploração de bases de dados: a importância da Linguística. Transinformação, v.15, n.1, p.45-52, 2003.
Muldrow, J.; Yoder, S. Out of cite! how reference managers are taking research to the next level. Political Science & Politics, v.42, n.1, p.167-172, 2009.
Rokni, L. et al. A comparative analysis of writing scientific references manually and by using endnote bibliographic software. Pakistan Journal of Medical Sciences, v.26, n.1,
p.229-232, 2010.
Sombatsompop, N. et al. Categorization and trend of materials science research from Science Citation Index (SCI) database: A case study of ceramics, metallurgy, and polymer subfields. Scientometrics, v.71, n.2, p.283-302, 2007.
Webster, J.; Watsom, R.T. Analyzing the past to prepare for the future: Writing a literature review. Management Information Systems Quarterly, v.26, n.2, p.13-23, 2002.
Zaugg, H. et al. Mendeley: Creating communities of scholarly inquiry through research collaboration. TechTrends, v.55, n.1, p.32-36, 2011.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2022 Transinformação
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
