For the reference type “Journal Article” consists of two fields:
Sometimes a publisher wants to add extra content to a journal without having an extra issue. So they add a part sometimes called “Supplement”, other times “Part 1” etc
Typically this is the case with accounting, anthropology, psychology, sociology
So we urgently need a third field which can be left blank when not used called “Part”
Please advise when this will be implemented. If you need further details please advise
The beauty of Endnote is that you can create/edit/modify the reference type settings to incorporate a new field as you describe. Then you need to add it to the output style(s) that you use, with associated link adjacent and separate characters, so that it appears when it should and any associated spaces and punctuation do not appear when the field is empty.
Download it from here: http://endnote.com/kb/131728 (download files from the far right panel).
What you are suggesting requires me to set up 99% of what is already there and move to a non-standard reference type. When I was in software that was called a “Kludge”
What I asked was for the Endote Developer’s to fix something they overlooked
So what I am asking now is that you jump in and push it out to the Developers
I am a user too and have no power over endnote or the developers.
But it isn’t a kludge – it is a rare request – and thus why it is why endnote has been designed in a way to let users adapt it to their needs. – even if the developers added the field - it would use a pre-existing custom one, which may have be used by others for something else. - and it wouldn’t be incorporated into the majority of the >5000 styles already out there. – so it isn’t a simple request.
equally warmly, Leanne, Endnote user, not with the company, really!
So are you saying that (a) the developers develop new features by staying out of touch with users channels such as you and (b) they would try to use an existing field instead of adding a new one? If I remember rightly, tech support have been telling users to use one of the existing empty fields for 10 years. They suckered me in and then when I came to need additional Reference Types I had to redo all my entries because I had used a field which suddenly was essential to the Reference Type I needed to start using
No wonder the competitor bibliographic programs are gaining more users - they are in touch with their user base and recognise that the field for bibliographic description have to be refined
No wonder also that the competitor bibliographic programs are gaining more users - they also have recognised that it is time to move into management of the bibliography and providing capability for analysis. Witness to poverty of the research analysis fields by providing just a research note field
I am an old dog. Endnote serves my purposes well, so I don’t look for it to be all singing, all dancing. Every time they try to incorporate something fancy, it breaks what I want it to do. Which is to be a robust citation handling program.
So I see it as better for Thompson to develop a completely different software package incorporating fancy options such as you propose, to trying to fit the existing Endnote software into a different box which the backend database wasn’t designed to do probably 30 (or more!) yrs ago. I think it was twelve or years ago, they did make a major revision and it took 2 versions to sort out the bugs that introduced (Endnote 8). I suspect eventually, like Procite and Ref Man before it, Endnote will be phased out too. But hopefully not before I retire in 5-10 yrs!
my last comment.
Might you be able to provide an example of a scholarly database that includes the mentioned ‘part’ information which may sometimes included for certain publications? Seeing a real world example of this scenario would definitely be helpful. If you’re able to pass along such an example, feel free to reply to this same forum thread.
Thanks for your interest
Do you mean you want some examples of journals which have issues with parts?
Since most people get their reference information from an online database (like PubMed, etc), if you could provide an online database that you use which includes this data in their export, we could see how they’re trying to tag it for inclusion in bibliographic software like EndNote. If there are some popular databases that include this in their export, that would be a big driving factor in showing that it should be a new standard that bibliographic software packages like EndNote need to include. If nobody includes it in their export data, then it would have to be a manual process for the end-user to edit each record to include it in ANY bibliographic software package. Assuming we understand the request/usage correctly.
Thanks for your follow up
Working in the social sciences in an interdisciplinary way I do many manual creations. I don’t use PubMed much. I suspect that one reason you have been able to avoid the problem is that PsychInfo and APA are only interested in volume number but this must inevitable change as with electronic holdings it is necessary to know the issue or month to get the set of pages in which the article can be found
What you will find is 3 approaches
The supplement is treated as an issue (and is called “Supplement” sometimes with a numeric suffix, with pages numbered with an s prefix for example, s1 to s500, for example)
The supplement is treated as a separate “journal”. For example it is designated a Supplementary Volume. The one I know is Zeitschrift für Geomorphologie
The supplement has the same number as the prior issue and is designated a supplement. This is the one I am concerned about:
For example look at http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/theory_and_event/
where there is issue 1 and isue 1 supplement for 2015
Here is another
where there is
There are many examples like this eg http://www.ajpmonline.org/issues
**These are the kind of problem that EndNote needs to be able to deal with** It seems to me to be very straightforward. Create a “Journal Article with Part” Reference Type. Add it to the Reference Type list. Eventually supplant “Journal Article” with “Journal Article with Part” Reference Type
While I have your attention, please can you have a look over in suggestions to see what can be done with adding a field to establish the validity status of the Reference. It is criminal that a reference can be added without a flag to show whether it was added from an authoriative source eg PubMed. or picked up out of a reference list and is being added without the source being sighted (verified) but is ready for follow up (eg find a PDF). Two silly answers were given by tech support (a) to use the rating field (b) to use the read/unread status. Both are prone to inadvertent toggling which renders the status either meaningless or misleading. We need a status field and it is a sensible addition which in turn could be selected for display in the Library Window screen.
Thanks for being around over Easter!
Further to the above: Here is another example, the one which originally prompted me to make the request:
Sacks, Harvey; Schegloff, Emanuel Abraham; Jefferson, Gail (1974). A simplest systematics for the organisation of turn-taking of conversation, Vol 50, Issue 4, Part 1, pp696-735
Thanks Gary, that information is helpful.
The MUSE site has an EndNote export option, which uses the standard RIS format, but unfortunately, they are tagging the supplement information as:
N1 - Volume 15, Issue 3, 2012 Supplement
The RIS standard states that the N1 tag is for the “Notes” field, so they are not sending that information to a standard field, and it’s not separated from the Volume and Issue data (which are duplicated in the VL and IS tags). The word Supplement, or something similar to indicate that aspect, are not tagged with any other indicator, so there’s no way EndNote could currently deal with the information provided in that format for that site. However, that does NOT mean that the RIS standard can’t change as standards dictate. I’ve passed on this info to our Content department, for consideration in future updates.
The second example you’d provided, jahonline.org, simply includes the letter S in the page SP and EP tags, the Start Page and End Page. They show as:
SP - S1
EP - S2
I tested, and this one does indeed ‘properly’ include the S in the page numbers, which hopefully meets the requirements of any journals you’d be submitting to which would expect a supplimentary journal entry. So, that may be working as intended and meet the needs of our customers in the current state, as long as the ‘standard’ is to include the S in the page ranges. Again, it seems to me the standard has not yet been set, which we may have some small portion of influence over going forward (‘we’ as in the folks in this thread along with the EndNote team).
For any other users who may be reading this thread who have the same requirement for their works, please do chime in to let us know, and add your voice to the mix!
What did you think about the example in the follow-up post?