WEEK 3 ASSIGNMENT
Name
Institution
Week 3 Assignment
While using ProQuest RefWorks, I first created an account with ProQuest RefWorks, which allowed me to access some of the libraries and sites that I needed to import sources from. There are two options that I identified within the site of moving references. I also discovered that I could move references as well from other software that assists users to organize references, such as EndNote, Zotero, and Mendeley. In the process of importing references from other databases, I felt that the site was slightly slow. The uploads were taking longer, and this was the greatest difficulty that I had with using the site. Below is the screenshot of the organization of my references on the site
The other software that I chose was Mendeley. Mendeley is an academic, social network and a free freelance manager that can assist a user in organizing his or her research, discover the latest research, and collaborate with other users online. It automatically generates bibliographies, import research sources from other software, access papers from several online sites, and enables collaboration between a user and other online users. The preparation of the library for my sources using Mendeley is revealed in the screenshot below, which depicts the organization of the references in the software.
As opposed to ProQuest RefWorks, Mendeley is a lighter site. ProQuest RefWorks can often take longer to respond to commands, and one of the reasons that have been provided in the FAQ is the speed of the internet. There are instances when ProQuest RefWorks is fast, which could be deceiving at some points, since where the internet is unstable and keeps fluctuating, the immediate effect on the site is a slow response, unlike the effect that it has on Mendeley (Roseler et al., 2019). Despite this, both ProQuest RefWorks and Mendeley have good experience in the organization of citations. ProQuest RefWorks is even better at deduplicating citations. Even though there could be slow responses to the use of ProQuest RefWorks, it has more visible options that are easier to recognize (Ivey & Crum, 2018). Mendeley, on the other hand, would require some guidance on how to use certain features, and this is evident in the support system that the software possesses to assist users in navigating the software. The site seems to respond effectively to every command, signaling the possibility that it is lighter than ProQuest.
The other advantage that Mendeley has over ProQuest is that in the process of importing papers or sources from other research software, Mendeley is more responsive (Murphree, White, & Rochen Renner, 2018). ProQuest would fail to take longer to load documents. This is an issue that makes the experience of using Mendeley more comfortable, unlike that of ProQuest. There is also the aspect of the type of metadata that is added to the loaded documents. Both ProQuest and Mendeley seem to add very little metadata that is important to the examination of a source, such as abstract, the page numbers, the name of the authors, and sometimes the volume of a source if it is periodical. In the case of ProQuest, when such metadata are provided, they could be incorrect, and this is the same situation with Mendeley as well.
ProQuest RefWorks has certain advantages over Mendeley, and this includes the number of sources that are available for access when using ProQuest RefWorks. Most library databases are accessible when using ProQuest RefWorks, but in Mendeley, there are difficulties and access limitations when attempting to access sources from EBSCO databases, which includes sources from sites such as ERIC, PsycInfo, Medline, AMED, SocINDEX, and CINAHL (Roseler et al., 2019). This disadvantage limits the nature of sources that a user can access when using Mendeley, as opposed to using ProQuest RefWorks, which would further impact the nature of the content that is available for comparison and development of content when conducting research (Murphree, White, & Rochen Renner, 2018). I also identified that where subsequent searches in the database reveal similar sources, and there is no possibility for a user to identify whether there are duplicates existing in the sources that are being uploaded to the library to the ones that are in the library, ProQuest RefWorks highlights the duplicates and gives the user the opportunity to delete them. Mendeley, on the other hand, lacks this feature, rather conducts the delete of the duplicates automatically. The duplicate eradication system in Mendeley is so aggressive that it can delete items that might not necessarily duplicate but share certain phrases or names within the source (Murphree, White, & Rochen Renner, 2018). This can disenfranchise a user who had hoped that the earlier sources that were imported to the library still exists within the library, while the Mendeley duplicate system had deleted such sources from the software. The additional research that I conducted on the duplicate system that Mendeley applies revealed that it is not recommended in instances where a systematic review is being conducted.
The other advantage that ProQuest has over Mendeley is that ProQuest supports Google Docs. This is an important feature because most students would rather have their references and library sources easily connected to their Google Docs for easier and quick access when necessary. Mendeley, on the other hand, does not support Google Docs (Trembley & Walker, 2019). I considered this as a feature that might depend on the tastes and preferences of individual users because there are users who might not be dependent on Google Docs as I do, and they might not be affected as much by software that does not support Google Docs. Despite this omission in Mendeley, I recognized that it has mobile options and can be installed on both iPhone, iPad, and android apps. This is a critical feature for easier accessibility of the references that a person has stored in the software. Mendeley also has a 2 GB free storage capacity for online usage, which is critical in determining the number of sources that a user can store online.
There are certain disadvantages that are inherent in ProQuest Refworks but are not found in Mendeley, but whose effects could determine how comfortable a user is with using the software or site as a reference organizing tool. For instance, ProQuest Refworks only seems to work on the cloud, while Mendeley seems to accept both desktop and cloud usage (Ivey & Crum, 2018). This is a critical feature of usage because where the cloud is not accessible for whatever reason, there is no recourse, while in the case of Mendeley, a user can opt to revert to the desktop. The other limitation in ProQuest Refworks that is significant is on a plugin for word (Kratochvil, 2017). The system seems not to work in a virtual environment but generally works well in a natural environment, even though other plugins seem to affect how it operates. One of the proposed features that I learned was to use the ‘Refworks for Word’ shortcut when operating it in a virtual workspace. Such challenges are not visible in the use of Mendeley, which seems to work fine with a plugin for word.
References
Ivey, C., & Crum, J. (2018). Choosing the Right Citation Management Tool: Endnote,
Mendeley, RefWorks, or Zotero. Journal of the Medical Library Association; (Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania) 2018 Supplement; v.106, 399-403
Kratochvíl, J. (2017). Comparison of the accuracy of bibliographical references generated for
medical citation styles by EndNote, Mendeley, RefWorks, and Zotero. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 43(1), 57-66.
Murphree, L., White, M., & Rochen Renner, B. (2018). Reference Managers that Support
Collaborative Research: Dreaming of the Perfect Fit. Medical reference services quarterly, 37(3), 219-233.
Roseler, K., Park, E., Coleman, V., Carlson, B., & Kendal-Wright, C. (2019). A Case Study
Using ProQuest RefWorks: An entry point for addressing information literacy. Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 19(4), 90-108.
Tremblay, P., & Walker, T. P. (2019). Reference‐Management Software. A Guide to the
Scientific Career: Virtues, Communication, Research, and Academic Writing, 577-590.