CiteULike

February 24, 2005 8:02 AM

CiteULikeis a site for tagging online academic articles. It lies somewhere in the intersection of del.icio.us, CiteSeer, and EndNote. When you tag an online article, you can add your own metadata, develop your own collection, and share other people's collections. You can also export your collection to BibTex or EndNote. While you can't access articles that you or your institution do not subscribe too, there seems to be a fair amount of CiteSeer stuff in there, for instance in relation to collaborative filtering. There are also some groups, such as The Philosophy of Information.
posted by carter (12 comments total)

This is good, thanks.
posted by fatllama at 8:18 AM on February 24, 2005

Awesome. I have been using del.icio.us for this purpose, but this looks like it will suit my needs a lot better. Thanks!
posted by Quartermass at 8:48 AM on February 24, 2005

As someone who spends an unfortunate amount of time on PubMed, I gots to say this has potential -- esp. if it develops the critical mass/sample size necessary for significant predictability. (Oh, and it's gotta export in more than just bib and EndNote, too!)
posted by docgonzo at 8:49 AM on February 24, 2005

Could you imagine being an academic without the Internet? I honestly don't know how they did it. I mean, my university library links to all sorts of full text articles, not to mention scholar.google.com, I hardly ever even have to go to the library to do literature reviews.
posted by Quartermass at 8:51 AM on February 24, 2005

Well, way back then, we used the subject-specific college libraries, which were 90% bound journal volumes. And a photocopier.

It wasn't too horrible, but you spent a lot of time in the library.
posted by smackfu at 9:40 AM on February 24, 2005

Ooh, this is nifty! Lit searches are going to be much easier. I have forwared this link to all my grad student and post-doc friends. Thanks, carter!
posted by naturesgreatestmiracle at 9:43 AM on February 24, 2005

Thanks for this, I expect this is going to ease the thesis writing process (keeping track of 6 - 9 seperate bibliographies is a massive pain in the arse). While not as revolutionary as scholar.google this looks like its going to help a huge amount. It will become better with more users and more critical mass.

BTW, in the old days, we used to flip through bound journals or -- this was painful and I am happy that electronic databases took over about half way through undergrad -- flip through bound subject indexes. And, yeah, spend lots of time at the photocopier. I don't miss it one bit.
posted by bumpkin at 10:28 AM on February 24, 2005

Yup I remember taking handwritten notes from the tiny print in the co-citation indexes of the bound volume copies of the Science and Social Science Citation Indexes. I'd then walk over to the card catalogue drawers to see if the library had those cites, then find the physical volumes in the stacks, flip through them to find the articles, and then photocopy them, if they looked useful. I used to get covered in a fine dust that made my eyes and throat itch.
posted by carter at 10:46 AM on February 24, 2005

The logo seems familiar.
posted by Count Ziggurat at 3:16 PM on February 24, 2005

This looks raw, but potentially useful. Thanks.
posted by casu marzu at 4:21 PM on February 24, 2005

I've used Co-Citer in the past and found it useful. From their website: "Cogitum Co-Citer is a tool for creating collections of texts from the Internet. It captures the selected text, its Internet address, its title and date of adding to the collection." Windows IE only. Free for non-commercial use.
posted by Aspie at 11:12 PM on February 24, 2005

It doesn't seem to support ChemAbstracts (CAS) or LANL SciFinder. Since I do almost all of my academic searching through those portals, this seems of marginal value to me.
posted by u2604ab at 10:41 AM on February 25, 2005