Now we can create our own groups in a group set,but that is not enough. I think sub-groups in the groups of a group set should be allowed because sub-groups will help make writing more convenient. For example, when writing an article, I will create several groups named “introduction”, “methods”,“disscussion” etc corresponding to the sections in my article. At present all the cited literatures in each section were mixed together in the created groups. I think allowing sub-groups can furhter categorize the literatures in each group. All the literatures revolving around the same point in each section can be classified into the same sub-group. When we add new records into the endnote library, we can add them to the appropriate sub-groups, which will organize the literatures in the same way as they are to be cited in the same paragraph in an article.
I think sub-group will be a great help to organize literatures to facilitate paper-writing. I hope to see it in the next version of Endnote.
I can only second this suggestion. Preparing large-scale bibliographies very often involves subgroups, and having a way to handle this would be very useful.
Definitely a good Idea, I don’t even understand why it’s not there yet… I have to use an ugly workaround, where I put very long group names that define “virtual paths” to “virtual subfolders”…
In my case I am a student in my second degree. I have group sets based on my full time job, personal titles, my first degree and now my second degree. I am currently using X5.0.1, as provided by my university for post-grad students.
In my second degree group set, i have groups based on my study units. If sub-groups were possible, I would be able to define which references are used for individual assignments and which are topic-related etc. Currently, they are all “muddled together” in one unit-of-study group within my University set.
While the current organisation inexplicably better than before there was grouping available, the single-level grouping is very limited in its application.