|
|
|
|
|
by boyband6666
2705 days ago
|
|
Zotero has improved a lot, though sadly it still has a way to go on the user experience of Mendeley. My main gripes are - The way that it still doesn't play nice with cloud services (syncing the directory and its just a matter of time until you get database corruption. It takes a lot of wonky setting up to get it to kind of work, which just shouldn't be the case - The lack of developers and thus slow pace of improvement. I'm a researcher not a programmer - which I think describes most people using it. That means unfortunately we are reliant on one or two volunteers to improve the product. The pace of improvement is slow, and theres also no way to meaningfully advance it - be that through offering bounties for someone to implement certain features, just inputing lists of bugs/feature requests (the list is already v long, and doesn't move much), or anything else. It's a really good bit of software (and I don't want to sound ungrateful), I just know it still has a lot of quirks. This means it can't always do what you want, and it isn't an easy obvious choice for new researchers - Mendeley is certainly more familiar and easier to use. |
|
Of course Zoteros development is less funded and less agile. Given that, I think they have worked on many shortcomings. The interface is now good, the group-based sharing works, PDFs are read and meta-data is added well. The import plugin is better than that of Mendeley.
Mendeley has an advantage in that it has a great PDF viewer and editor. But since you can not do anything with these PDFs and annotations, like export them or send them anywhere, it's now pretty much useless.
Switching is not easy, but in the long run I don't think you'd be faced with much issues going from Mendeley to Zotero. It was certainly worth it for me.
As it stands, you can still import from Mendeley to Zotero, so I'd at least do that now, until Elsevier finds a way to shut this down completely.