Additional imported files (systematic review issues)
I am doing a systematic literature review. I imported three files from ebsco, web of science and scopus, they should be 349, 431, and 395 accordingly. Total 1175. I used citavi initially as my reference manager.
My problem is that when these three files are imported into nvivo they total 1256. I did not notice this discrepancy and proceeded with my scanning of texts. This takes a considerable amount of time. Unfortunately I see there is an increased number in the files shown in citavi after the import process.
I decided to try and establish how this could happen. I created another project in citavi and repeated the import with the same three files. Again 1256. I then opened Zotero and imported these same files, this time got 1175, the expected amount.
I feel a bit exasperated now and I am unsure how to proceed. Can anyone shed any light on how I have managed to acquire an additional 81 files when importing the same files into citavi please, and what if anything I can do about it?
thank you Zoe
The same question
After reading the support forum it appears that the anomaly appears to be due to the way that citavi manages conference papers. The additional 81 articles in citavi (compared to Zotero) is the exact number that I have identified as conference proceedings. Is it safe to assume that other files will be as per other reference managers. I am trying to avoid the need to repeat this systematic review in another reference manager. I am not sure why citavi would deviate from other reference managers in this approach, it means I cannot use it for a systematic review tool, as it would not present the same document counts as the intended output numbers from the main online libraries / databases. Therefore making the review irreplaceable.
After reading the support forum it appears that the anomaly appears to be due to the way that citavi manages conference papers. The additional 81 articles in citavi (compared to Zotero) is the exact number that I have identified as conference proceedings. Is it safe to assume that other files will be as per other reference managers. I am trying to avoid the need to repeat this systematic review in another reference manager. I am not sure why citavi would deviate from other reference managers in this approach, it means I cannot use it for a systematic review tool, as it would not present the same document counts as the intended output numbers from the main online libraries / databases. Therefore making the review irreplaceable.
Just to add to this, I tested the same files individually imported into a new project on citavi and zotero. I'm sorry to say Zotero is matching the expected import numbers and citavi is out on two of the three file imports:
should be 395 from scopus , in citavi import - 452 (ris file)
should be 349 from ebsco - is 349 this is a bibtext file
should be 455 from web of science in citavi it is 431.
Just to add to this, I tested the same files individually imported into a new project on citavi and zotero. I'm sorry to say Zotero is matching the expected import numbers and citavi is out on two of the three file imports:
should be 395 from scopus , in citavi import - 452 (ris file)
should be 349 from ebsco - is 349 this is a bibtext file
should be 455 from web of science in citavi it is 431.
After reading the support forum it appears that the anomaly appears to be due to the way that citavi manages conference papers. The additional 81 articles in citavi (compared to Zotero) is the exact number that I have identified as conference proceedings. Is it safe to assume that other files will be as per other reference managers. I am trying to avoid the need to repeat this systematic review in another reference manager. I am not sure why citavi would deviate from other reference managers in this approach, it means I cannot use it for a systematic review tool, as it would not present the same document counts as the intended output numbers from the main online libraries / databases. Therefore making the review irreplaceable.
After reading the support forum it appears that the anomaly appears to be due to the way that citavi manages conference papers. The additional 81 articles in citavi (compared to Zotero) is the exact number that I have identified as conference proceedings. Is it safe to assume that other files will be as per other reference managers. I am trying to avoid the need to repeat this systematic review in another reference manager. I am not sure why citavi would deviate from other reference managers in this approach, it means I cannot use it for a systematic review tool, as it would not present the same document counts as the intended output numbers from the main online libraries / databases. Therefore making the review irreplaceable.
Son vaxtlar bukmeker kontorları çox populyarlaşıb. Əgər siz bukmeker kontorunun partnyoru olmaq istəyirsinizsə, o zaman bu linkə daxil olun mostbet azerbaycan və bukmeker kontorunun tərəfdaşı olun. Bukmeker kontorunun partnyoru olmaq çox rahatdır, çünki siz insanları bukmeker kontoruna dəvət edib, ondan pul qazana bilərsiniz.
Son vaxtlar bukmeker kontorları çox populyarlaşıb. Əgər siz bukmeker kontorunun partnyoru olmaq istəyirsinizsə, o zaman bu linkə daxil olun mostbet azerbaycan və bukmeker kontorunun tərəfdaşı olun. Bukmeker kontorunun partnyoru olmaq çox rahatdır, çünki siz insanları bukmeker kontoruna dəvət edib, ondan pul qazana bilərsiniz.
Replies have been locked on this page!