Stephen Eglen <s.j.eg...@damtp.cam.ac.uk> writes: >> Agreed. Google Scholar citations need very close proofreading, as they >> can be erroneous or poorly formatted. > > Thanks Matt - I'd agree with this, having seen oddities from google > scholar. I emailed them ages ago about one problem (formatting of > initials in author names), but never heard back... it is a pity that > there is no mechanism for tidying up their references, as it seems to be > the best thing out there that covers all the fields. > > Having said that, if google scholar can save me some typing, I'll > happilyuse it as a starting point for a bibtex entry. I've just started > using pdfmeat -- this is nice, as given a pdf, it outputs the > corresponding bibtex entry from google scholar. Probably works similar > to the way zotero does it, but can be used straight from the command > line: > > http://code.google.com/p/pdfmeat/ >
Thanks for the link! That looks like a useful tool. >> accessed by bibsnarf are limited to math and sciences. Since I use >> biblatex together with the Chicago Manual of Style, any bibtex entry I >> clip has to be edited and tweaked substantially. (Indeed, manual editing >> is unavoidable when using biblatex.) > > If its not too tangential, why do you use biblatex -- is it the future > for bibtex? I use biblatex because I use citation styles in the humanities (especially the Chicago Manual of Style). Biblatex and the chicago-notes package (both now part of TeXLive) handle Chicago Style footnotes and bibliographies beautifully, with an astounding number of options and flawless formatting -- but the bibtex entries are a bit fussier than standard bibtex. Best, Matt
