Posts Tagged ‘Mendeley’

Ain’t here, neither

Posted on July 12th, 2013 by Paul Stainthorp

Gone FishingMore tidying up of accounts & profiles on websites that I no longer use [publicly]. I’ve removed all of the links below from the sidebar of my website. If you can find a profile at any of these addresses, it’s not me.

  • CiteULike (
  • LIS New Professionals Network (
  • Mahara (
  • Mashed Library (
  • Mendeley (
  • RefWorks RefShare (
  • Slideshare (
  • Talis Aspire Reading Lists (
  • Zotero (

Gotta love those profile IDs. Lovely, readable URLs.

Exporting from Mendeley or RefWorks into Talis Aspire reading lists (.RIS)

Posted on December 20th, 2012 by Paul Stainthorp

It’s possible (though fiddly) to export a batch of references from a reference management software package, and import them as a batch into a University of Lincoln reading list.

The two reference management packages I use the most are RefWorks and Mendeley, though it should be possible to do this from any reference software that can export .RIS files – i.e. most of them.

From RefWorks:

  1. Log in to your RefWorks account.
  2. Add the references you want to export to a single folder.
  3. Go to the “References” menu and select “Export”.
    Screenshot from RefWorks
  4. In the “Export References” window which appears, choose the folder that contains the references you want to export, and from “Export Format”, select “Bibliographic Software (EndNote,Reference Manager,ProCite)“. Then hit “Export”.
    Screenshot from RefWorks
  5. Look in the bottom right-hand corner of the screen for the “Completed” window, and hit the “click here” link for a file or download prompt.
    Screenshot from RefWorks
  6. The .RIS file should appear in a new window. Don’t try and save the page as a .RIS file, because it includes HTML markup which will cause the reading lists software to reject the file. Instead, copy and paste the contents of the window into a text file (I use Notepad++ on Windows, and gedit on Ubuntu), and save that file as <something>.ris (i.e. give it a “.ris” file extension, not “.txt”).
    Screenshot of RIS
  7. Now you can import the saved .RIS file into the reading lists software – see below.

From Mendeley:

  1. Launch the Mendeley desktop software. (You can’t do the below operation from Mendeley on the web.)
  2. In a “Documents” view, select/highlight the references you want to export.
    Screenshot from Mendeley
  3. Then go to the “File” menu and select “Export”.
    Screenshot from Mendeley
  4. Change the file type to “RIS – Research Information Systems (*.ris)“, and save the file to your computer.
    Screenshot from Mendeley
  5. Next you will probably need to make a slight edit to the Mendeley .RIS file you have saved on your computer. The University of Lincoln’s reading lists software (Talis Aspire) is very strict and expects the correct newline characters at the end of each line of text in the RIS file. Open the saved .RIS file in your advanced text editor (e.g. Notepad++gedit), and perform a ‘find and replace’ operation for the following special characters – replace every ‘Line Feed’ character (LF, \n, 0x0A) with ‘Carriage Return’ +  ‘Line Feed’ (CR+LF, \n\r, 0x0D0A) – then re-save the .RIS file.
    Screenshot from text editor
    Screenshot from text editor
  6. Now you can import the saved .RIS file into the reading lists software – see below.

Importing the saved file:

  1. Log in to the University of Lincoln reading lists, and go to “My Bookmarks”.
    Screenshot from the reading lists software
  2. Mouse over the “Add Bookmark” button and click on “Import Citations”.
    Screenshot from the reading lists software
  3. In the “Import resources” window, choose the saved .RIS file from your computer, and hit “Import”. (At this point, you can also choose to add the imported references to a new list if you want – this is optional.)
    Screenshot from the reading lists software
  4. The reading lists software will confirm that the .RIS file has been successfully submitted, and you should receive an email when it has been processed and the references are ‘live’ in your account.
    Screenshot from the reading lists software

Some potential problems:

  • The reading lists software is very fussy about following the .RIS file specification in regards to line end / newline characters (see above). If you see the following error message, it is probably caused by the wrong newline characters existing in the .RIS file:
    • This file could not be read. Please check the contents and try again.
  • The references in the reading lists software will only be as good as the ‘source’ references in your reference management software (which in turn are only as good as the place you bookmarked/imported them from in the first place). There’s no guarantee that your .RIS file will contain enough information to construct a full or meaningful reading list item.
  • Book references will not be linked automatically to the University of Lincoln library catalogue. To link a book to the catalogue, you will need to find out its bibliographic record number (bib#) and manually add it to a “Local Control Number” field in the reading list item record.
    Screenshot from the reading lists software

List of cross-repository search tools

Posted on March 9th, 2012 by Paul Stainthorp

I’ve been wondering for a while why [national] aggregated/cross-repository search services haven’t really taken off – why aren’t they as well-known as union library catalogue services (e.g. Copac, which is part of the standard librarian’s armoury)?

Is it because aggregated search of repository-only content wouldn’t be particularly useful to researchers; perhaps because Google [Scholar] provides them with what they already need? Is it because no subset of all the repositories in the world would really meet researchers’ needs; i.e., they aren’t interested in finding articles just from one ‘showcase’, country-specific repo search tool? Because it’s too difficult? (Can’t believe that; not compared to the aggregation of catalogue data.) Or because OA is too far off 100% to make it a worthwhile exercise?

It’s certainly not for the want of initiatives and projects to build ‘em. A presentation at the recent UKCoRR members’ meeting made me realise just how many there are.

Here’s a list of ten eleven websites, tools and projects which relate to inter-repository search:

  1. Google Scholar (, “a simple way to broadly search for scholarly literature” – the de facto cross-repository search tool. Google’s inclusion guidelines for webmasters (inc. of repositories). A journal article about finding repository content via Google (doi:10.1177/0961000606070587).
  2. Institutional Repository Search  (IRS) demonstrator from Mimas (, retrieves content “across 130 UK academic repositories”, from a project completed in 2009.
  3. KMi CORE (COnnecting REpositories) Portal (, a newer project with its own project website and blog. “The CORE project aims to make it easier to navigate between relevant scientific papers stored in Open Access repositories. ” Recently extended by the ServiceCORE project
  4. OAIster (, developed by the library at the University of Michigan and adopted by OCLC in 2009. “More than 23 million records representing digital resources from more than 1,100 contributors.”
  5. OpenDOAR search ( – using Google’s Custom Search Engine (CSE) to search the full-text of material held in open access repositories listed in the OpenDOAR directory of repositories. At the time of writing this blog post, the service had been temporarily withdrawn since 25 January 2012.
  6. RepUK (, a project to build a central cache of metadata from institutional repositories in the UK (currently harvesting from 159 repositories).
  7. RIAN (, a national portal to the contents of the institutional repositories of the seven university libraries in Ireland; “your route to Open Access Irish research publications” – this is the kind of thing I had in mind: why isn’t there one for the UK?
  8. ROAR ( – also uses Google’s Custom Search Engine across all 2000-odd repositories registered in ROAR.
  9. Subject and discipline-specific repositories including such venerable initiatives as arXiv ( and PubMed Central ( offering different approaches to aggregating content that—for the most part—ignore the role of the institution and work directly with authors and publishers, respectively.
  10. Mendeley (… not searching repositories, but achieving much the same result, and, sez Les Carr, spanning the public/institutionalised (OA) and private/social (peer-to-peer) methods of providing access to papers.
  11. BASE (; “BASE is one of the world’s most voluminous search engines especially for academic open access web resources. BASE is operated by Bielefeld University Library.” (Added at the suggestion of John Murtagh, 12 April 2012)

Any others I’ve missed?

Now let us “thank” OAI-PMH (and quite possibly SWORD, too), for making all of this possible… other shared repository tools and projects include:  AEIOUJULIETNamesOA-RJORCIDOpen Depot, OpenDOAR, ORI, PIRUS2, RoMEO, and about 9,997½ more.

Spot the difference: RSP event in Sheffield

Posted on November 15th, 2010 by Paul Stainthorp

Sheffield Cathedral - DSC_0939The entire e-resources and repository team went en masse to the latest Repositories Support Project event, “Doing it differently“, which was held in Sheffield Cathedral on the 27th of October 2010: “to hear about alternative approaches to repository-like functions, open access and the general field of improving research communications“.

Some quick points from the notes I took on the day:

  • [I think it was] Stephanie Taylor of UKOLN [who] made a good point in her presentation about the ‘forgotten’ people in libraries, who ought naturally to be interested in the content held in repositories, but who are rarely included in discussions: inter-library loans staff being an obvious example, with the repo. as source of material to reduce the burden on document supply.
  • Our own repository was mentioned in Richard Davis (ULCC)’s examples of SNEEP plugins used ‘in the wild’ – it’s good to think that some of the features of the Lincoln Repository (crafted over in the LIROLEM project that gave it its genesis) are still worthy of being held up as examples.
  • Stephanie Meece’s demo of the University of the Arts’ repository was enlightening; it gave considered and coherent explanation of some of the low-level culture-clash conversations that we’ve had with our own Art & Design academic staff. It was worth it, too, to hear about the Kultur Consortium and the potential there for mutual support and development of repositories capable of meeting the needs of the Arts.
  • Joss Winn was also there, bringing the University of Lincoln contingent to five! Joss gave a talk on using RSS to grease the wheels of scholarly writing and publishing, which has an accompanying blog post.
  • Also exciting to see the direction Mendeley is taking [slides], with the potential (in the new year) for new features (“Library Groups”) to support library e-journals admininstration and subscription analysis.

We also took the opportunity (as four of the five committee members were in the room) to conduct an informal, stand-up UKCoRR meeting over lunch, at which we laid the groundwork for the next UKCoRR AGM, which will hopefully take place toward the end of February 2011.

Slides and handouts from the day are on the RSP’s website.