[Eril-l] Is anyone using New refworks?
M. O'Dea
listlocus at gmail.com
Thu Oct 13 14:07:56 PDT 2016
(My first post to this list, and the first time out it only went to Melissa. Sorry Melissa!)
Hi,
Thank you, Cindy Harper, for this informative report.
As of now we have not migrated at St. Cloud State, but I have communicated with ProQuest about testing.
As to the choice offered on login between legacy and new: I heard from our ProQuest support person that that can only be disabled from within the admin space of New RefWorks. Even if the user is not confused by the sudden availability of what they likely already know, and the 'mystery meat' new option, I am still not clear on the implications of choosing 'New' prior to soft rollout of the new version having been made available. To see for myself, I *want* to click 'New' just to see what happens, but now that I wish to see it, I have not been served that screen for several weeks.
I would like to run a test instance of admin as well. Perhaps this is already part of overall 'testing,' but more likely not -- but I still don't know because I have not yet received a response to my inquiry. I need to follow up this afternoon.
E/t/a: Thank you so much, Amy for the link to your LibGuide.
Cheers -
Mary O'Dea
Emerging Technologies and Systems Librarian
St. Cloud State University
St. Cloud MN
> On Oct 13, 2016, at 1:21 PM, Melissa Belvadi <mbelvadi at upei.ca> wrote:
>
> We've moved in the sense of turning on the ability to make the new accounts, but we aren't going to do the forced migration until we have to, which we believe is December 2017.
>
> Basically we're telling new users to learn just the New RefWorks, and users like faculty and grad students who are in the middle of writing a paper/thesis using the old one to stick with the old one to finish that work first before migrating.
>
> We are a Google Apps for Education site, so the New RefWorks support for Google Docs was an important reason for us to migrate. Also the lack of WnC support for the latest MS Office for Mac was a compelling reason for us.
>
> We are still working on getting the Institutional login hooked in (I think the delay is on our own IT dept side of things), and when that's working, we will offer that choice too. According to support, users can switch their account between the institutional login and direct Refworks account whenever they want, even back and forth, so our long term plan is to encourage the institutional login until they're close to graduating, and have them switch it over right before they leave so they can still use their RefWorks account even when their main campus "LDAP" account is disabled.
>
> We have run into some of the problems discussed below, especially the poor performance on the new feature to drop a PDF and have it figure out the citation from that, but the reasons above are enough for us to bite the bullet.
>
> Melissa Belvadi
>
>
>
>> On Thu, Oct 13, 2016 at 3:07 PM, Diane Westerfield <Diane.Westerfield at coloradocollege.edu> wrote:
>> Recently at my library, other librarians asked me why haven’t we moved to the new RefWorks. I hadn’t seen much chatter on the listservs and figured we’d transition at some point but not be early adopters. The problem we’re running into now is the “choose your Refworks screen” which confuses some folks.
>>
>>
>>
>> I’d be curious to hear if anyone has moved to it and what issues you encountered.
>>
>>
>>
>> Also, we noticed our current version of Write n Cite doesn’t work with Word in Microsoft Office 2016. I don’t know if the new version of RefWorks is any better on this front.
>>
>>
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Diane Westerfield, Electronic Resources & Serials Librarian
>>
>> Tutt Library, Colorado College
>>
>> diane.westerfield at coloradocollege.edu
>>
>> (719) 389-6661
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> From: Eril-l [mailto:eril-l-bounces at lists.eril-l.org] On Behalf Of Harper, Cynthia
>> Sent: Thursday, October 13, 2016 9:36 AM
>> To: eril-l at lists.eril-l.org
>> Cc: Budde, Mitzi; Hess, Bradley
>> Subject: [Eril-l] Is anyone using New refworks?
>>
>>
>>
>> I just experienced a failed attempt to roll out the new Refworks for our entering class. I have been fighting technical battles all week, and was unable to prepare for the complications of citing book chapters, and identifying sample citations from my catalog that imported nicely. So the students reaction was - why try to use this tool? “How did we form new priests before the Internet?” (snark).
>>
>>
>>
>> A summary of the technical issues:
>>
>>
>>
>> Z39.50 searching:
>>
>> We had a working Z39.50 search in legacy refworks, but when New Refworks was set up for us, they created a new definition rather than copying the old one. That one never worked properly, jumbling the titles. So when I asked them to fix it this week, they finally copied from the legacy definition and told me it would be shown in production today. No joy. Instead of getting one new version, now all my Z39.50 searches, including Library of Congress and other schools, don’t work.
>>
>>
>>
>> Drag-and-dropping PDF:
>>
>> I didn’t even attempt to show them this feature, because when I first used new RefWorks, I dragged in all my PDFs and the system went into permanent busy-twiddle. When tah problem was corrected, I tried individual articles, and these did notparse well.
>>
>>
>>
>> Creating new accounts:
>>
>> I needed to have a method for valid VTS users who don’t have vts.edu email accounts and are remote (DMin students) to create accounts, so I proxied the signup link. This required a SAN definition in my proxy security certificate. That got completed in time, thankfully.
>>
>>
>>
>> Save-toRefWorks browser plugin:
>>
>> Since I couldn’t use Z39.50, I demoed using the Save-to-Refworks plugin. There’s no statement on the Proquest help libguide as to which browsers this works for. I had tried Firefox and Chrome. Students had less luck with Safari, IE, and other browsers. Also, this plugin brings in very limited information from the catalog record.
>>
>>
>>
>> Innovative catalog save to refworks:
>>
>> The other instructor and I decided that the igamarole of saving to a file from the library catalog and importing into refworks was too cplicated, so we didn’t show that. Too bad, since that provides the best parse of the data. (I was counting on Z39.50 search being available). I had to modify our III catalog definitions for what gets saved in these files, however.
>>
>>
>>
>> Saving from ATLA Religion database:
>>
>> This works OK, but I was too shaken by how badly my session was going to remember to show them this :\.
>>
>>
>>
>> WriteNCite:
>>
>> Too complicated to show them this on the first introductory session.
>>
>>
>>
>> Since I didn’t have writeNCite for bibliographies:
>>
>> I realized just before the session that WriteNCite won’t allow you to edit the formatted citation and bibliography in Word, so I quickly decided to show them creating their bibliographies right in Refworks. Why do they have an option the says “Create BibliographY”, and an option just below that that says “Quick Cite”, which basically do the same thing EXCEPT “create bibliography” doesn’t alphabetize the list? I of course showed them “create bibliography” –it sounded like what they wanted :\.
>>
>>
>>
>> Libguides:
>>
>> Oh, yeah, whle I was working on adding this new resource to my A-Z list of databases, a feature in Libguides stopped working: you could no longer assign a Database type to the resource. So I had to re-do the way my Research Aids libguide page was produced.
>>
>>
>>
>> Sheesh! Is this a common experience with using products that are having ongoing development updates applied daily, as is the latest agile development practice? Was I foolish to have decided that New RefWorks was ready for prime time?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Cindy Harper
>>
>> E-services and periodicals librarian
>>
>> Virginia Theological Seminary
>>
>> Bishop Payne Library
>>
>> 3737 Seminary Road
>>
>> Alexandria VA 22304
>>
>> charper at vts.edu
>>
>> 703-461-1794
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Eril-l mailing list
>> Eril-l at lists.eril-l.org
>> http://lists.eril-l.org/listinfo.cgi/eril-l-eril-l.org
>
>
>
> --
> Melissa Belvadi
> Collections Librarian
> University of Prince Edward Island
> mbelvadi at upei.ca 902-566-0581
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Eril-l mailing list
> Eril-l at lists.eril-l.org
> http://lists.eril-l.org/listinfo.cgi/eril-l-eril-l.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.eril-l.org/pipermail/eril-l-eril-l.org/attachments/20161013/e6a91614/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the Eril-l
mailing list