Finding Full Text by skipping references which have file attatchments

In finding full text, is there any way to skip those references which already have file attachments? Currently it searches for all (first 1000) references. As a result, I have references with duplicate file attachments (pdf files).

Thanks you.


First sort on the attachment field (the little paperclip column) in library display which will bring those records without attachments to the top. You can select them and from references “show selected”.  I sometimes make a group of these and then display reference type and resort them, so I can see the journal ref type and only do find full text on those, or by journal, so you only search on the ones you know you should have access to.  Right clicking up in the field titles in library view will allow you to view or not view the various fields and you can also move them around. 

BTW  If you have Pubmed active in your Find Full Text preferences, then it is highly suggested you don’t try “find full text” on 1000 records at once or Pubmed is likely to interpret the commands as a “denial of service attack” and block access to your IP address. 

This Find Full Text was Invoked when I imported the references from EndNote Export/Import. Actually I needed to import all my references by first exporting to EndNote Export (txt) format and  then imprting them when I moved pdf folder to different location (by replacing old pdf location with new location)

On my EndNote Preferences, Automatically invoke Find Full Text on newly imported references was checked.

I think EndNote should be smart enough to skip those references which have pdf attatchments when finding full text automatically on newly imported references.

You might post this suggestion in the suggestions part of these forums.  – I guess I would prefer that it asked first though (skip?).  Some of my records have a prepublication (or ePub) version prior to print, and I wouldn’t want those skipped.  Others also have supplemental files.  So Endnote would have to retrieve it and then compare the two before assuming they were the same file?  

But programmers are clever, so if you make the suggestion, and enough users chime in with support, it might make it to their to-do list?