![]() So, consider this review as a rough guideline. Of course, a more comprehensive list of features and a more sophisticated rating scheme would have been nice, but this would have been too time consuming. Please note that we only compared about 50 high-level features and used a simple rating scheme in the summary table. However, this comparison is most certainly more objective than those that Mendeley and other reference managers did -). You are very welcome to share your constructive criticism in the comments, as well as links to other reviews. In addition, it should be obvious that we – the developers of Docear – are somewhat biased. However, even if you disagree with our evaluation, you might find at least some new and interesting aspects as to evaluate reference management tools. Of course, the criteria are subjectively selected, as are all criteria by all reviewers, and you might not agree with all of them. ![]() Hopefully, we can include them in the comparison some day, but for now we only have time to compare the three. We really tried to do a fair comparison, based on a list of criteria that we consider important for reference management software. Of course, there are many other reference managers. In this Blog-post, we compare Zotero, Mendeley, and Docear and we hope that the comparison helps you to decide which of the reference managers is best for you. Actually, there is no such thing as the ‘best’ reference manager but only the reference manager that is best for you (even though some developers seem to believe that their tool is the only truly perfect one). So, which reference manager is best? Zotero? Mendeley? Docear? …? The answer is: “It depends”, because different people have different needs. Our research shows that mind map-specific user modeling has a high potential, and we hope that our results initiate a discussion that encourages researchers to do research in this field and developers to integrate recommender systems to their mind mapping tools.Which one is the best reference management software? That’s a question any student or researcher should think about quite carefully, because choosing the best reference manager may save lots of time and increase the quality of your work significantly. A user study confirmed the high effectiveness of the mind map specific approach with an average rating of 3.23 (out of 5), compared to a rating of 2.53 for the best baseline. However, when adjusting user modeling to the unique characteristics of mind maps, a higher CTR of 7.20% could be achieved. The evaluation shows that standard user modeling approaches are reasonably effective when applied to mind maps, with click-through rates (CTR) between 1.16% and 3.92%. Docear displayed 430,893 research paper recommendations, based on 4,700 user mind maps, from March 2013 to August 2014. The approaches are applied and evaluated using our mind mapping and reference-management software Docear. Additionally, we develop novel user modeling approaches that consider the unique characteristics of mind maps. In this paper, we explored the effectiveness of standard user-modeling approaches applied to mind maps. Mind maps have not received much attention in the user modeling and recommender system community, although mind maps contain rich information that could be valuable for user-modeling and recommender systems. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |