RefWorks’ Write-n-Cite Problems with Mac OS Mavericks

If you’re a Mac RefWorks user, and are thinking of upgrading to  Apple’s new Mavericks version of the X operating system, you should be aware that Write-n-Cite is not compatible with OS X10.9.

According to the RefWorks Facebook page, currently, Write-n-Cite only works with OS X up to 10.6.

Without Write-n-Cite functioning you can still format a bibliography using the One Line/ Cite method.



Posted in Citation management, Publishing, Research, Software, Tools & Technology | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

New feature in PubMed: Clinical trials link to Systematic Reviews which cite them

If your PubMed search turns up a clinical trial, you may see a box linking to systematic reviews which have cited that trial. Not every clinical trial or systematic review in PubMed is included (yet). For now the National Library of Medicine is working on getting each of the 31,000 plus systematic reviews included in PubMed Health linked to the trials they cited.

Screen shot from PubMed

Screen shot from PubMed

From the PubMed Health website: “PubMed Health provides information for consumers and clinicians on prevention and treatment of diseases and conditions.

PubMed Health specializes in reviews of clinical effectiveness research, with easy-to-read summaries for consumers as well as full technical reports. Clinical effectiveness research finds answers to the question “What works?” in medical and health care.”

For more information about this new feature, see

Posted in Research | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

RefWorks Flow: A Free Document Management Tool

Looking for an alternative to Mendeley and Zotero? You’re a RefWorks user but want a tool that’s better suited to collaboration and document management?  You might want to take a look at RefWorks Flow.













Launched in 2013 Flow is designed to help researchers discover, store, and organize academic articles, citations, and metadata downloaded from electronic databases. and collaborate with other researchers. This cloud-based tool facilitates collaboration by allowing group annotation of articles, sharing of datasets, and group editing of draft documents.

Any student or faculty member with a verifiable academic email address can sign up for a free account, which offers 2GB of cloud storage, and the participation of up to 10 collaborators per project.

View a short online tutorial.

Posted in Citation management, Data Sets / Data Management, Research, Scholarly Communication, Tools & Technology | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

Looking for Health and Medical Statistics?

People are often surprised how difficult it can be to find health and medical statistics. Data collection in the United States is a fairly recent activity and it was not until 1956 that Congress enacted legislation to establish the US National Health Survey in order to collect statistics on disease, injury, impairment, disability, and other health related topics. Data collection and analysis at a national level takes time to compile, so  it is often difficult to find data for the most recent years.

To help you locate statistical information the National Library of Medicine (NLM) has published a new subject guide. It is not designed to be exhaustive but is intended as a pointer to major information sources.


Posted in Data Sets / Data Management, General, Medicine | Tagged , | Leave a comment

ChemSpider: A Free Source of Online Chemistry Information


Looking for chemistry information? ChemSpider, from the UK’s Royal Society of Chemistry (RSC), is a free online chemical database offering access to information on almost 25 million unique chemical compounds. Data is obtained from over 400 online sources. ChemSpider  is more than a database, however,  as it asks chemists to participate in data enhancement and curation.








Posted in Database, Research | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

PubMed Commons: A System for Commenting on Articles in PubMed


Last  October the NCBI launched the pilot phase of a program called PubMed Commons, designed to allow users to comment on published abstracts on the PubMed website.

PubMed Commons enables authors to share opinions and information about scientific publications in PubMed. All authors of publications in PubMed are eligible to become members. Members play a pivotal role in ensuring that PubMed Commons remains a forum for open constructive criticism and discussion of scientific issues. They can comment on any publication in PubMed, rate the helpfulness of comments, and invite other eligible authors to join.

More information.

Posted in General, Publishing, Research | Tagged , | Leave a comment

Updates on RefWorks and EndNote

I posted important information about EndNote and RefWorks in the final months of 2013. In case you missed them here are links to the posts:

RefWorks Users No Longer Required to Enter Group Code When Logging in to RefWorks Account.

What’s Desktop EndNote? EndNote Web? Online EndNote? EndNote Basic? – I’m Confused!



Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Elsevier gets Scrutinized for Take-Down Notices

This post was updated on December 21, 2013.

When it comes to public relations, the publisher Elsevier seems to be its own worst enemy. They’ve recently issued take-down notices to commercial sites such as and to several universities, where authors have posted the final, published version of their journal articles from Elsevier journals. is social networking and research sharing site for scholars, similar to Mendeley and ResearchGate. Because Elsevier is so prominent in the field – they publish well over 2,000 scholarly journals, many of which are top tier – when they do things, they do it big. And people pay attention to what they do.

Studying apple computer flickr SuperFantastic

image credit: flickr user SuperFantastic

So, no surprise that the library and academic community has been been abuzz with news about this recent round of takedown notices. Several popular news sources have written about it – including the Chronicle of Higher Education, Washington Post, and TechCrunch.

To be fair, Elsevier does allow authors to post the final version of their manuscript, before the publisher has typeset and copyedited it, immediately after publication (there is an embargo period for authors at an institution like UC with an open access policy, but that’s a whole other story). This version, but not the final PDF from Elsevier’s site, can be posted on author websites and OA institutional repositories. What they’re objecting to is the final version being posted. Many publishers have a similar policy and are doing the same kind of scanning for unauthorized versions of articles that have been posted, so Elsevier is not the only publisher that issues notices.

To date, no requests have been received at UCSF, however some of our sister UC campuses have gotten notices. See this Office of Scholarly Communication information page to find out more.

Why so much coverage of this round of  notices? I think it’s because social media sites like Mendeley (which is now owned by Elsevier) and have become so popular with researchers, and because academics are coming around to the idea that their own scholarly writings should be openly accessible. Elsevier and other publishers that insist on authors transferring their copyrights are starting to seem backwards and old-school. To me, this is progress!

Perhaps the best nugget from the WaPo piece is this quote from Peter Suber of Harvard University, from the Comments section:

“Here are a few extra details on the situation at Harvard. All the takedown notices were for papers posted to faculty web sites. None were for papers in DASH, Harvard’s open-access repository. All were for published editions. None were for the authors’ final peer-reviewed manuscripts. For papers covered by the Harvard OA policies, Harvard faculty have a lawful alternative, even for papers published in non-OA journals.

Speaking personally: Authors can’t blame Elsevier enforcing the rights they gave it. Those upset or angry with Elsevier should submit future work to a different publisher.”

Posted in Copyright, Publishing, Scholarly Communication | Tagged , | Leave a comment

RefWorks Users No Longer Required to Enter Group Code When Logging in to RefWorks Account.







RefWorks users are no longer required to enter a group code when logging in to their account off-campus. If you are a current RefWorks user, simply log in to your  account as you have done in the past. The removal of the group code will not affect how you normally log in. However, for the time being you’ll still need the group code to login to Write-N-Cite.

New Users

New users that do not yet have an account must be on-campus (or within a registered IP range for your Institution) or accessing RefWorks through proxy server when initially creating an account. This is so RefWorks can attach the user to a subscription.  Once the new user has set up their account they will be able to log in from any location, with or without proxy authentication, using only the login name and password.


RefWorks will be removing the need for the group code when logging in to WNC 4 in an upcoming release.  Until then, users must log in with WNC4 using the current method, either group code/login name/password or with the authentication code.  Use the group code, login name and password or the login code provided after logging into RefWorks on the WNC login page.

WNC III users must continue logging in with their group code/login name/password or via proxy configuration if off-campus.  RefWorks will not be removing the group code requirement from the WNC III login page.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

What’s Desktop EndNote? EndNote Web? Online EndNote? EndNote Basic? – I’m Confused!

Let’s begin by saying that there are currently two major versions of EndNote: desktop EndNote and online EndNote. The EndNote desktop software stores the program and your citation library locally on your computer. Online EndNote accounts store your citation collection on servers at Thomson Reuters, so you can log onto the web and access the account from anywhere.

Initially the only version of EndNote available was the one you installed on your desktop or laptop computer. In December 2006 the EndNote folks launched a web-based version of EndNote. This was a simplified stripped-down version and was not designed to replace the more comprehensive desktop application.  However, EndNote and EndNote Web could exchange citations, so it was possible to  work with your citations in EndNote Web off-campus, later moving them into desktop EndNote. The citations were stored on the web so you could access them wherever you were, either on or off campus.






In 2013 EndNote Web became EndNote Basic, and was made available as a free web-based application. Though allowing you to create bibliographies in MS Word, Basic is still a stripped down version of the desktop software, offering, for example, only 20 of the most popular bibliographic styles.

To make matters a little more confusing there are now three types of online EndNote account: one is linked to the EndNote desktop program; another is associated with a Web of Knowledge/Science site  and the third is the free Basic account which is not associated with either of these. So campuses such as UCSF which subscribe to Web of Science/Knowledge have access to a version of EndNote Basic that has considerably more features than the generic Basic. The following two articles summarize the difference between these versions:

  • EndNote Online from the Adept Scientific website.
  • EndNote comparison on the EndNote website: note that UCSF users should check WEB OF KNOWLEDGE to see which features are available and go to the Web of Science site to create an account.


Posted in Citation management, Publishing, Research, Software, Tools & Technology | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment