Thanks so very much for the reply. I realize and appreciate the work - I am trying to help by giving feedback from a person that is an actual researcher who uses bibtex intensively - I would help with dev, but currently stuggling to keep up with my coding in R and Julia and python - no time to add java…
I suspect my view represent may users. Some points:
.1. Jabref 3 is very very good - one think I like about it is that it is setup to deal with a large data base efficiently - I have over 5000 citations and papers and add 5-10 papers every day. I would have preferred refinement of jabref 3 and moving it to java 9/10/
- Our libary recommends mendaly and zotero - I get the sense you trying to match them? Couple of points. With the problems I faced with jabref 4 I tried to swich to these, but they are simply “too automated” and they are really poor at dealing
with large databases. The competitive advantage of jabref 3 is being able to help maintain a large, complex data base, and keep research notes for each paper. Mendalay and zotero look good and work fine for students with small databases, but impossible to maintain for large bibtex files.
- Having “automatic features” is a disaster for large databases - one mistake and I waste days fixing things. So today I have 5 cites to add - when I use the automatic seach I typically get the wrong file, which is put in the wrong location - wastes time. My workflow starts
with web of science -> jstor - jstor does a good job with the bibex format, which I cut and past into jabref, and then I download and rename the file, and store. Then I click add in jabref 3, and the link is there in a second.
When you do this as much as I do, time makes a different - in addition to being slow, with jabref 4 the auto link is slow, so more time is wasted.
When you guys dropped the support of parenthesis () - I had to write a python script to fix my data base - more hours wasted- anything that potentially messes up a data base has to have some clunky way to do things - automation with no control is really not a good idea…
It is worthwhile keeping in mind that heavy users need speed and reliability above all - I just do not see how you can compete with mendalay and zotero head to head given their resources. What they do not do is create a stable and efficient environment for heay uses
I see this as your competitive advantage.
As I said, ideally I would like a branch for jabref 3 that adds java 10 compatibility and keeps bugs under control.
In any case, jabref 3 is a fantastic reseearch tool - I cannot find any better tool for large databases. Unfortunately, for production use jabref 4 creates so many problems, I have to recommend my students to use jabref 3 for the moment.
For small data bases there is lots of competition - so the jabref advantage is being stable and able to handle large databases well and allow research to add notes for each paper.
Thanks again for reply and many thanks for your hard work.