![]() ![]() What I'd really like to see is the following: I'm a big fan of Mendeley, so I'd like to see this problem fixed. Now, finding and merging duplicates is a hard problem (see doi:10.1145/1141753.1141817 for some background), but I'm struggling to see why these documents were considered to be duplicates. Roger D Price, Ricardo L Palma, Dale H ClaytonĪs you can see it's a bit of a mess. Review of the genus Saemundssonia Timmermann (Phthiraptera: Philopteridae) from the Alcidae (Aves: Charadriiformes), including a new species and new host recordsĪ new genus and a new species of Daladerini (Hemiptera: Heteroptera: Coreidae) from MadagascarĪ review of ground beetle species (Coleoptera: Carabidae) of Minnesota, United States : New records and range extensions ![]() The table below shows the original details for the paper, the details for the "canonical paper" created by Mendeley, and the details for two papers that have some of the bibliographic details in common with this non-existent paper (highlighted in bold). ![]() The BioStor link for the phantom paper displayed by Mendeley,, is for a third paper "A review of ground beetle species (Coleoptera: Carabidae) of Minnesota, United States : New records and range extensions". Not only is this not the paper I added, there is no such paper! There is a paper entitled "A new genus and a new species of Daladerini (Hemiptera: Heteroptera: Coreidae) from Madagascar", but that is by Harry Brailovsky, not Clayton and Price (you can see this paper in BioStor as ). To see the paper in the Mendeley group, browse it using the tag Phthiraptera: ![]() Review of the genus Saemundssonia Timmermann (Phthiraptera: Philopteridae) from the Alcidae (Aves: Charadriiformes), including a new species and new host records by Roger D Price, Ricardo L Palma, Dale H Clayton, Proceedings of the Entomological Society of Washington, 105(4):915-924 (2003). For example, here is a paper that I uploaded to the group Proceedings of the Entomological Society of Washington: The problem is that sometimes (and more often than I'd like) the canonical document bears little relation to the document I uploaded. Once the document gets one of these URLs Mendeley will also display how many people are "reading" that document, and whether anyone has tagged it. Let's call this document the "canonical document" (this document also has a UUID, which is what the Mendeley API uses to retrieve the document). If you click on a refernece that has been recently added to Mendeley you get a URL that looks like this: where 584201 is the group id, 3708087012 is the "remoteId" of the document (this is what it's called in the SQLite database that underlies the desktop client), and the rest of the URL is the article title, minus stop words.Īfter a while (perhaps a day or so) Mendeley gets around to trying to merge the references I've added with those it already knows about, and the URLs lose the group and remoteId and look like this. In the absence of a good description by Mendeley of how their tools work, we have to try and figure it out ourselves. References that I upload appear in public groups listed on my profile, such as the group Proceedings of the Entomological Society of Washington. Although the metadata isn't perfect, it's usually pretty good, and in many cases linked to Open Access content in BioStor. I've been uploading large collections of references based on harvesting metadata for journal articles. In this post I discuss the reverse problem, combining two or more distinct references into one. It also has implications for metrics derived from the Mendeley, such as those displayed by ReaderMeter. Duncan focussed on the case where the same article may appear multiple times in Mendeley's database, which will inflate estimates of how many distinct references the database contains. Duplicate documents is the number one problem faced by Mendeley, and has been discussed in some detail by Duncan Hull in his post How many unique papers are there in Mendeley?. This appears to be due to some over-zealous attempts to de-duplicate documents. One issue I'm running into with Mendeley is that it can create spurious documents, mangling my references in the process. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |