EndNote X7.4 has problem with Word 2016's Track Changes mode.

I am using EndNote X7.4 and Microsoft Office Word 2016. While writing a document they work perfectly together, but when I’m revising a document and tracking changes, EndNote inserts new citations in the original text. So, when I change “Track changes” view to “Original” I get new citations in the original text. Has anybody encountered similar problem? How can I fix this?

You mean the citations from the deleted text still appear (which they would in original, which is before tracked changes were introduced)?  Or new citations that you inserted are now visible in the “original” view?  

That is because Endnote fields don’t play nice with tracked changes, if they are tracked, which used to happen when ever endnote scanned and updated citations with tracked changes on, and they were all “tracked” even if they didn’t change.  Now the developers have set it up so they aren’t really tracked at all, I think.  They are deleted or inserted “untracked”.  I may be wrong about that, as I haven’t used them for a while.  

I mean, when I insert a new citation while tracking changes the citation comes as it was introduced before tracking, in the original text. Theoretically, the citations that are inserted after turning the “Track changes”  on should not appear  when the “Track changes” view is “Original”, but in my case when I turn to “original” view, newly added text disappears, but newly added citations still there within the original text. It changes the position of original text lines and I get confused with the revision that I should introduce to the document.  

Thanks to Leanne, now I’m getting a little bit sense of how EndNote works. Probably EndNote doesnt track the changes. Is there any way to turn it on? 

No – believe me – when it did, it created a document so marked up, it was impossible to follow and it was slow at every step. Every citation was marked.  

The way I avoid this, (and the risk of corrupted citations, or loss of endnote fields if I am collaborating) is to keep the document in the unformated state, leaving CWYW off.  Then inserted citations are plain text although you don’t have the luxury of seeing the magic conversion to the appropriate bibliography.  It also means that tracked changes reflect reality.  (right up until you “format” or “update” citations and the bibliography).  

Then once in a while, you can update the bibliography if you like.  I really don’t understand the need for the “magic” of CWYW.

When sharing a draft with collaborators, I simply make a copy, format the copy and copy the references to the version I am going to share, so they know what I cited.  If the article is set to “Instant Formatting is off”  then your collaborators using endnote won’t be prompted for citations not in their library.  (albeit you won’t get their temporary library entries either). 

Yes, it’s really strange to have such a problem with EndNote. Mendeley for instance works perfectly with track changes, but since I am using EndNote it is difficult to move to Mendeley. For that I will need to recite all the references in my document using Mendeley. Anyway, now I am thinking about overcoming this problem by either 1) converting EndNote citations to plain text and adding new citations manually or 2) turning off  the track changes option and highlighting the changes manually.  What do you think, which way is less time consuming? 

Best ragards.

I wouldn’t change them to plaintext (apart from converting them to temporary/unformated citations.  – your bibliography would be out of order as you added new citations in endnote, and what if you decided to (or needed to) submit to another journal with a different citation/order style?  

Did some testing  

Turning off CWYW would achieve the appropriate tracking, only marking new (albeit unformated) citations as new  but only IF YOU use the Copy from the library (ctrl C) and paste in the document (ctrl V) and leaving existing citations as they are. However, if you use Endnote’s insert citation ribbon icon, the inserted (and unformatted) citations are not tracked as new.

Guess that is how the developers designed it to get around the tracked changes issues they were seeing.   – right up until you update the citations and bibliography, which results in none of them being tracked.  – with CWYW (instant formating on) no matter how you insert the citation, (with the ribbon tool or by the copy paste method) the inserted citations are never tracked.  

The developers problems appear to arise as word interprets each check of a citation field as a “change” and used to track it. Their solution may be one solution, but obviously not the correct solution for those of us that rely on tracking to see what has been changed to text AND to references.  So you could make a suggestion (in the endnote suggestions forum) that they modify the software to play nicer with tracked changes, but I wouldn’t hold your breath. 

Indeed, turning off CWYW would be a nice option for tracking if the position of original text wouldn’t move after updating the citations (And they have to be updated before submitting the revised manuscript back). In this case the main problem is the position of original text. 

Thank you very much dear Leanne for a nice discussion and good suggestions.

Best regards.

Hi Leanne

Two questsions based on what you have said

(1) Please can I get you to explain managing track changes with endnote further in the following example. I am lead author and have used MS Word v2010 and Endnote v7.4 so there are citations and a bibliography. Then my co-author uses track changes and want to delete paras which contain citation. What is the best way to proceed?

  1. Use a non track changes version and go and manually delete the citations which will remove them from the bibliogrpahy if they are only cited once

  2. reject the track changes deletion for the citation and remove then accept in track changes delete the text

  3. something else

(2) If I was gung ho and removed citations with track changes, can I get Endnote to update the bibliogrphay (that is delete the references which have had citations eliminated through track changes)?

Warm regards/gary

If you delete a paragraph in tracked changes mode and update the bibliography, and it was only cited once in that paragraph, it will be deleted.  Remaining citations aren’t tracked - but the one that is deleted, is deleted.  When you accept the tracked change, it is permanently deleted, just as you would and should expect.  It is just those citations that are inserted that are treated differently than you might expect.  

Does that answer your questions?  You can test it pretty easily, as I just did.  

Do remember, I am just a user not a a developer who works for the company.  

Hi Leanne

Much thanks for your answer. I appreciate you are a volunteer. It is a pity that the Endnote Developers haven’t encouraged the volunteers to produce a new book with the knowledge from the forum.

I did try it and got inconsistent results.

So just to check: Are you saying that (1) so long as I am just deleting Endnote will manage the deletions if I update the bibliography (2) it is better not to insert citations during track changes.

Warm regards/gary

(2) It doesn’t matter if you insert a citation with tracked changes on.  They just won’t be indicated as a tracked insert and later, if you decided to review and rejected inserted text with a citation, it will let you reject the tracked changes surrounding it (will be split into before and after), won’t delete the citation itself because it isn’t tracked. Turning off tracked changes will mean none of the text is tracked, including the citations.    Does that make sense?  

But if you select the text that encompasses the citation and delete it, the text and the citations will be deleted.  So I did an example.  I had a line, and added some text and two citations with tracked changes on and it looks like in the attachment. (note the two citations in the middle of the red were added while in tracked changes, but are not red, and not tracked).   

If I now did a “next” review of the tracked changes and rejected the inserted text, it would delete the red text (in three steps) but leave the two now stranded citations in place.  (see attachments capture and capture 1)  – but if I select the text highlight in yellow (in capture 2) manually and delete it, they will be deleted with the rest of the inserted text.  (even with tracked changes on and when you review that and accept the deletion, they will be deleted).  

Thanks Leanne and thanks also for the samples. Much clearer.

So the good news is that where track changes marks a deletion, endnote will handle it as it should i.e. delete the citation and if it was only in the bibliography because that was the only citation, it will also remove it from the bibliography. There is no need to update the bibliography

The other news about inserting citations means it is better to check whether the citation was inserted via Endnote rather than typed.

I also understand your point about rejecting an inserted citation (which I handt thought of) needs careful attention

Warm regards/gary