To analyze the survey, we first grouped students into major disciplines (according to the discipline groups identified by the National Research Council Survey of Doctorates). Six students had used more than one bibliographic program. For these six students, we entered the information about their discipline and program use twice. Usually these students had begun using one program and then changed to another.
The number of students in each discipline using bibliographic software is shown in Table 1. Also shown is the percentages of students using the software for creating a bibliography or notetaking, and the percentages of students who imported bibliographic information from online resources or commercial database resources. All students were using the software to create a bibliography. About half the students were importing information from online sources (all students in Life Sciences). Relatively few students were importing information from commercial database sources.
Online catalogs mentioned included: Investigator, Current Contents, ERIC, Mirlyn (U of Mich), local VCAT, Internet via Gopher; OCLC; FirstSearch, NOTIS, Silver Platter, ABI Inform, Melvyl (UC), TU Delft, CAB Abstracts, Medline, and Biological Abstracts.
Commercial Services mentioned included: CD ROM of Diss Abstracts, ERIC, Soci Sci Citation Index, Psych Index, MLA databases, STC/ESTC, Silver Platter, Knowledge Index, and Uncover.
The number of students using different editorial styles is shown by discipline in Table 2.
Table 3 shows the percentage of students within each discipline who were using each of the programs. EndNote Plus was the most popular program, with 60% of students reporting its use. The next most popular was ProCite with 17%.
Table 4 shows the number of students using a particular software who gave it a positive evaluation over the total students commenting.
Comments of students (by discipline) for each of the software programs are presented below.[C = Citation; EN = Endnote+; IB = Ibid; LM = Library Master; PC = ProCite; PP = Papyrus; RM = Reference Manager.]
***In Education***
1. EN - Positive. Used Mac version. Love the format/unformat feature. After reading article and before filing, I type the citation into ENDNOTES and add keywords. I can sort by key words to keep track of info in my files. I keep a notecard of my citation categories to ensure consistency. Good customer support. Best features: Format/unformat citations; Added a field called "Own This" (yes/no)
2. EN - Very positive experience. Features: Pasted the formated entry into author field of my d/base (Hypercard). Found the "FIND" facility useful.
3. EN - Very positive experience. Easy/adaptable. Best features: Added fields (e.g., ERIC numbers)
4. PC - Negative. Too overwhelming and too complex for my purposes.
***In the Humanities***
5. C - Positive to very positive. I use the keyword field for generating new reading lists. Also use keyword-markers to identify sources for teaching.Best features: Fields for indexing/keywords, abstracts.
6. EN - Positive. Helpful and reasonably easy to use with DOS. Sorts are easy; searches are fast. Niles & Assoc maintains an ftp archive of bibliographic styles and user comments. [[email protected]]
7. EN - Positive. Used with Mac. As a bibliographic device it's fine. I've been unsuccessful in modifying it to handle other materials. I don't know how to do short refs for subsequent citations so I've been using Chicago B instead of A. It's slow for taking notes. Uses [] to mark text entries and confuses with [] used for other purposes so picks up non-bib items for formating.
8. EN - Negative. Awkward, limited flexibility, bad documentation. Works poorly with Word in a DOS environment; better in Macintosh. Dislike having to know wp pkg to format bib entries. Best features: Pulling annotations into thesis.
9. EN - Very positive. Used primarily to sort and record prelim exam materials. Manual and tutorial easy to understand and sufficient to allow immediate use. Best features: 32K characters/field big enough to write abstracts. Keywords. I've created a cross-ref format for essays in anthologies.
10. EN - Negative. Was not the "plug-n-play" program I thought I was buying.
11. IB - Very positive. Only problem -- documentation is in "computer English". Best features: Intext citation. Quick access to template (2 key strokes).
12. LM - Positive. Free-form database that lets me add categories, search, mark text, scan in large texts, auto-formats. I like its flexibility, keywording, creating fields, fast search. It's a research tool more than a bib tool, helpful to me as an editor.
13. PC - Positive/negative. Like formating in several styles and exporting bibs to wp programs. Often frustrating to use, however, and poor documentation. Used Biblio-Link II for Windows to download from online (Melvyl) into ProCite. Took several extra steps and extra software for a feature included in other programs.
14. PC - Negative. Not highly useful for refs in foreign language. Found errors in MLA style so I still had to double check cites. IMHO: Program isn't worth its price.
15. PC - Very positive. Allows Boolean searches. Allows design of input fields and output format. Seems fast. A few limitations. The manual is appalling. No popular supplementary helpbooks. Don't know how to include accent marks. (Now print out wierd.) I like that I can provide a starter bib in my subject with three keystrokes.
***In Life Sciences***
16. EN - Positive. Seems pretty good to me. Helpful in keeping track of references.
17. EN - Positive. Easy to use and seamless with Word for Windows. Use both PC and Mac versions as a database for keeping track of all scraps of info. You can directly download from online services (Melvyl) using Endlink ($49). Main criticism is lack of Windows version and DOS version is complex.
18. EN - Positive. Very useful. Importing refs was easy. Best features: Easy to check for duplications.
19. EN - Negative. Best for editing manuscripts. Lack of database mngmt features made it unsuitable. Best features: Can view database while editing manuscript.
20. PP - Positive. Best features: Import from Medline. Grouping multiple ways. Autoformating.
21. PC - Negative. It's okay but not good for much. I've tried printing bibs but they don't look the way I want. Can't transfer citations to the bib. I've used ProCite for 3 yrs. It was put on our dept network (so network license would cost less). Bad idea. Takes 10 times as long to find a citation.
22. PC - Very positive. Excellent db mngmt and bib formating features. Not easy or sophisticated for manuscript editing. Comprehensive data fields; good documentation for maintaining reference database. Excellent customizable bib formating. Easy editing. Sophisticated search. Good tech support via email. Best features: Awesome online db download feature used with Bibliolink II.
23. RM - Very positive. Great with DOS network; now we're in Windows so switching because don't have a Windows version of RM. I filed papers by RM number. Best features: Can keep RM open and search by keyword when writing a section.
24. RM - Negative. I haven't used it as much as Endnote because it's difficult to import refs.
***In the Physical Sciences***
25 BibCard - Very positive. Many tools work with BibTeX format (e.g., WWW). Since switching from GUI-based bibcard (public domain) to Emacs, edit Bibtex in Emacs. Clear templates for different publications. Indicates which info is mandatory/ optional. Best features: Allows for extensive annotation. Can search on the annotation field.
26. EN - Positive. Don't use it to the fullest. Best features: Export into a Windows file.
27. EN - Positive. Like the flash of creating a bib. Best features: Interactive "plug-in" module with bib set.
28. EN - Positive.
***In Professional Fields***
29. EN - Very positive. Picked Endnote based on reading reviews. Experience verifies reviews. Have 188 refs for dis together with extensive notes and quotes. File is now 1.4 MB and running fine. Endnote+2 (my new version) is doing some strange formating. I need to read manual/get tech help. Tech folks are terrific.
30. EN - Positive. Only used it for bib info so far.
31. EN - Very positive. Wish it worked with Word 6.0. Best feature: Ability to work in Word 5.1 for Mac.
32. EN - Positive. Much easier and more intuitive than ProCite which I used first. Annotated bibs are a snap. Don't have EndLink to download online info. Use copy and paste. Used the "label" field for call-numbers; sorted by call numbers for more efficiency in library. Latest version has form for email refs. Best features: Ability to work within Microsoft Word. I use keywords keyed to my dis sections which allows quick searches.
33. PP - Very positive. Has extensive features, is stable into ver. 7, and is priced right. Highly recommend it. I use for bibs with Microsoft Word.
34. PC - Positive. Used for library applications, directed readings, dis proposal, and teaching. Some of the best features require studying the manual. Best features: Search & sort functions allow printing in order I want. Output can be set for formating as WordPerfect file.
35. PC - Positive. Used on DOS then on Mac. Best features: direct import of Silverplatter and other online database output.
***In Social Sciences/Psychology***
36. EN - Very positive. However, Selling EndLink separately is a ripoff. Best feature: Plug-in module to Word for seamless use.
37. EN - Positive. Haven't yet figured out how to incorporate bib into MSWord documents.
38.. IB - Positive.
***Unidentified***
39. EN - Very positive. Use with a Mac, works interactively with MS Word 5.1. Extensive citation formats and painless conversions. Cheap. Highly recommend.
40. EN - Very positive. Excellent search and format capabilities.
41. EN - Positive. Remarkably adaptable for creating bibs. Easy to customize. Flexible.
42. EN - Very positive. Use with a Mac. Saves lots of time.
43. EN - Positive. Windows version would be VERY helpful.
44. EN - Positive. Use with Mac and MS Word. Doesn't use conventions such as Ibid., Idem, op.cit., etc. Can't import bib data from a variety of formats--including my own university. Warning: Check w/library to see which formats are supported before you buy.
45. EN - Freeware extension to Endnote called Taglink that allows you to download refs from MELVYL database. Available from Niles & Asso. ftp site.
46. LM - Positive. Easier and cheaper than most programs. More flexible than ProCite. I got a demo copy of LM from U of Maryland Inform System. Best features: Supposed to allow import of entries from online databases.
47. RM - Very positive. Windows based for several years now. Can easily transfer to WordPerfect environment.
More students (60%) from all disciplines use EndNote Plus than any other bibliographic software. The majority (86%) of students evaluate EndNote Plus positively. Its biggest drawback seems to be the lack of a Windows version and a Word 6.0 version. Students who had trouble with ProCite indicated it was more difficult to use and the documentation wasn't helpful.
These results are in accord with those by Cibbarelli's Survey, which was
posted on Doc-Talk March 22. Her evaluations showed overall satisfaction
rates as follows:
Return to ASGS home page.