I’m currently managing a complex project within EndNote where references are deliberately categorized into different groups based on various criteria. This multi-categorization is intentional for the nuanced analysis of the literature. However, I’ve encountered a challenge: I need to identify and track which references have been assigned to more than one group for a comprehensive review.
Is there a feature within EndNote or a recommended practice that allows for the easy identification of references that exist across multiple groups? My goal is to ensure a systematic review of these cross-listed references without manually comparing lists from each group.
Any insights, workarounds, or strategies from your experiences would be incredibly valuable to streamline this process.
I do that by globally adding keywords to new records I am importing, – and I use the keywords to create smart groups and edit groups to include a keyword. I also then copy smart groups to “real” groups regularly,
Indeed, I’ve experimented with utilizing keywords to manage my references, but the question remains: why should I rely on keywords when a direct, visible field in the Summary could easily indicate which groups a particular reference is associated with? This workaround feels unnecessarily cumbersome and counterintuitive.
The absence of such fundamental features in EndNote is baffling and, frankly, frustrating. It’s perplexing why users are compelled to devise their own solutions or find workarounds for what should be straightforward functionalities. The ability to clearly see at a glance which groups a reference belongs to is not just a nice-to-have; it’s absolutely essential for efficient reference management. It facilitates a smoother, more organized research process, allowing for quick identification and retrieval of relevant literature.
Moreover, the lack of support for sublevels within groups is another glaring omission that complicates the organization of references. In the context of research, where the volume and diversity of literature can be overwhelming, these limitations hinder our ability to maintain a well-structured and easily navigable library.
It’s puzzling and somewhat disappointing that EndNote, a tool designed to streamline and simplify the management of scholarly references, falls short in providing such basic yet critical features. The impact of these missing functionalities extends beyond mere inconvenience; it affects the overall efficiency and effectiveness of the research workflow, compelling users to seek alternative solutions or supplementary tools to fill these gaps.