Citavi 6 and Scrivener

Максим Х. shared this idea 6 months ago
Under Consideration

Greetings!

As we all know Citavi 6 unlike Citavi 5 doesn't have placeholders and writing assistant. I just wonder is there any effective way to use Citavi 6 in Scrivener? Maybe some of you had any experience? Or developers could give some advice on the subject?

Comments (26)

photo
5

I've read in other thread that you are going to develop the add-on which would partly solve an issue with placeholders and gives opportunity to work with LibreOffice but not with Scrivener. Why can't you develop the same add-on for Scrivener? I guess there are many Citavi 5+Scrivener users. What they suppose to do with Citavi 6?

photo
1

Dear Maxim,

Support for Scrivener was never an official feature of Citavi but only possible via a workaround. As such, and because our resources are unfortunately finite, we have to limit development to features that are useful to the majority of our users. We have noted your request and await to see if more users make similar requests. However, any decision on whether this feature can be developed or actual development on it will not be possible for a while, as all of our resources are currently focused on developing Citavi Web, our upcoming cloud-based version of Citavi.

Kind regards

photo
3

Dear Damien

I just wanted to ask: Does Citavi still follow up on these Ideas that have their status as "Declined"? Are our comments below being noted by anyone?

Thanks,

Elin

photo
1

Dear Elin,

We do not check declined ideas as frequently as support questions.

We know that Scrivener support is important to you and your workflow.

However, our resources are limited and we do currently focus on Citavi web.

As Damien mentioned, we await how many users will click "I like this idea" to come back to it.

Kind regards,

Jana

photo
photo
4

I am also Citavi 5 + Scriviener user and I am waiting for the add-on mentioned by Maxim! So please note my request as well.

photo
8

Well this does not make me happy. I spent a long time researching tools for my dissertation workflow and selected Citavi+Scrivener. I opted to commit to Citavi by purchasing a licence which seemed to require an upgrade to Citavi6. It never occurred to me that Citavi6 would not work with Scrivener. Having literally within the last 10 minutes forked out £100 to Citavi I've just come here to find my entire workflow plan is now a non starter that I'm tied into financially. This has ruined my day. It's all very well having an all singing and dancing reference manager and knowledge organiser but if it doesn't integrate with a serious writing and editing tool (and no, I don't mean Word) then it's pretty useless. Please add scrivener integration as a priority!!!

photo
4

Please note my urgent request for Scrivener support, too. Until then, I will not update from Citavi 5 to 6. The workaround with placeholders works perfectly for me but unfortunately, saving files to my own cloud causes some confusion in citation assignments. It's a pity that Citavi 6 is not compatible to Scrivener anymore.

photo
2

I'm in the same situation. For anyone on Citavi 5, here is the workaround for using citavi with scrivener: https://service.citavi.com/kb/a560/32042-using-citavi-with-scrivener.aspx

photo
photo
3

Dear Citavi-Team, You know, this could be solved with going back to place holders. I am aware in your business interest in cloudservices which nescesitates getting rid of placeholders but it is annoying for a lot of people and makes me want to leave Citavi.

You were awesome.

photo
8

Scrivener is becoming increasingly popular in the academic community. I am about to run an event at my faculty presenting a number of useful tools for humanities research, and I was going to enthusiastically endorse both Scrivener and Citavi. Now I will have to mention my reservations about Citavi: Scrivener works so well as a tool for small and major writing projects, that it comes first - and any reference manager that can do the job of supporting it. I know the amazing knowledge management capabilities in Citavi will actually seem of lesser importance: writing is our first and foremost job. I had actually hoped for Citavi 6 to be more fully integrated with Scrivener. Imagine the combo if it worked as well with Scrivener as with Word! Would beat anything.

photo
3

To the other users on this thread: Since Citavi declined this idea, which they took to mean "reintroduce the placeholders", I have, based on Jen's comment above and her comment to my Question earlier today regarding whether they had indeed noted our concerns in this thread, submitted a new,, active Idea for an actual Scrivener add-on.

If you would like this to happen, vote here: https://help.citavi.com/en/topic/vote-here-if-you-want-a-citavi-add-on-for-scrivener .


All best,

Elin

photo
2

Citavi: I see you have changed the status of this Idea from "Declined" to Under Consideration! Excellent! Thank you! :)


Elin

photo
2

I'm glad to see that my suggestion has so much support!

As an additional argument: this year Scrivener team is going to release a new version of Scrivener for Windows. So I guess after the release Scrivener will get many new users. And if you make a good Citavi+Scrivener add-on all these people could become Citavi users as well. It's not only our caprice, it's the question of perspectives for Citavi. I hope you will make that add-on.


P.S.Thank you all who leave comments in this thread!

Max

photo
4

I agree with Maxim on the commercial advantages of his suggestion. I would like to add something, though.

Besides the Windows community, with the upcoming Citavi Web edition, Citavi aims to reach to the Mac-users. These academic Mac-users are at the same time Scrivener users. They generally use reference managers that can work with Scrivener, such as Endnote and Bookends (among others). So a Scrivener add-in or at least a sort of workaround would increase the following of Citavi among Mac-users, too.

"Citavi + Scrivener" may well be a standard combination in the academia.

Best,

Ömer

photo
4

Although it was not an advertised feature of Citavi, its compatibility with Scrivener was one of its strengths for the academic community. As most people acknowledge, Word is good for preparing for the print, but not useful for the writing process.

I expect Citavi to find a way for us to use it across different text-editors.

As Maxim and Omer noted above, there are obvious commercial benefits to such a move. If Citavi works well with Scrivener, Scrivener-users would eventually move their Endnote (and other) projects to Citavi, as the latter is way more superior than Endnote and others thanks to its "knowledge organization" feature.

Best,

Rumeysa

photo
2

I would be more than happy to have Scrivener and Citavi working together. Word is not an option.

photo
3

I am researching options. I was about to purchase Citavi to work with Scrivener. Seems I need to reconsider based on this discussion though. Too bad. I really liked Citavi. Please let me know when this issue of compatibility is resolved. Thank you!

photo
3

Same here. Without Scrivener, Citavi doesn't make sense to me.

photo
1

I am a faithful Citavi user ever since version 3, and I too would be happy to have a Scrivener add-on.

photo
4

I can't stress enough the importance of Scrivener+Citavi workflow. Although I'd still prefer placeholders instead of add-on due to collaboration issues. Most of my co-authors don't use Scrivener and they usually mess up Citavi fields in Word, so placeholders are the essential solution in these situations. I can't find any information on why developers got rid of this feature. Is this because of cloud sync? It's always better to have two incompatible features (perhaps placeholders can be switched off by default), than adding a new feature while removing an old and useful one. I can live without cloud sync and web interface, yet the absence of placeholders or at very least Scrivener integration reduces Citavi's value to zero for me. And I love Citavi - it's superior to other reference managers in every imaginable way.

photo
1

Dear all,

Thank you very much for your feedback! We read your comments although we do not answer every single one.

Using placeholders was possible under the following two conditions:


a) There is a unique sequence number assigned to every reference in every project. This is no longer possible in Citavi 6, as cloud projects can be managed asynchronously by multiple users. This means references can be deleted or added asynchronously and unique sequence numbers can no longer be assigned without heavy performance losses.


b) The original file format is not binary but rather text based and uses “tags”. The body of the text can then be scanned for placeholders/sequence numbers that should be replaced with quotes. This process is highly complex, as many different variables such as paragraph formats, local formatting and positioning have to be considered.


Please also note that placeholder formatting cannot be offered in the US, as there is an ongoing patent dispute related to this feature.


Kind regards,

Jana

photo
2

Thanks for answering my question concerning placeholders. I'm nowhere near the development of complex software such as Citavi, but couldn't sequence numbers be replaced with hashes? It would let program assign a unique ID non-sequentially (it would be also unique across all projects). For instance, {Smith 2018 #7e76b4c3} for (Smith, 2018) and {Smith 2018 #38d160b2} for (Smith & Doe, 2018). It's a naive and straightforward example of hash implementation, but I think you get the idea and I'm certain that Citavi developers can come up with a more elegant solution, at least for local projects.

Maybe it should be left for Citavi 7, I'm ok with skipping a version or two for that matter, but I'm worried about the long term solution. As for now, the absence of placeholders or some similar plain-text-ID-feature limits my collaboration capabilities immensely.

Also, could you clarify point b) a bit more? Does it mean that placeholders can be replaced only in *.doc(x) format? If so, then it's not a big issue. One can always finalize text formatting in MS Word. Scrivener format is not binary though, its based on RTF.

photo
1

Dear Animus,


Thank you for your reply.


Placeholders could only be replaced in RTF document format.

With the technical limitation of placeholders in mind, we decided to move into the direction of online writing tools and Add-ins.


Which software do your colleagues use so that placeholders are important for your collaboration?


Kind regards

Jana

photo
3

Although they work in Word, they can't get used to add-in. Believe me, no amount of educational seminars can help it :) - after almost a decade they got used to the current workflow. Before that, they somehow always used to make a mess of a document with fields (e.g. they can't properly add another reference to the existing one), so I had to do a lot of manual work. On the other hand, they can manage plain text placeholders perfectly. And not only that, we also heavily use OneNote and it usually contains multiple text pieces with placeholders, so that is another issue.

Let me clarify my problem even more - I don't actually need 'Citation->Format publication' option! When I finalize our documents, I usually convert placeholders to fields in Word via add-in and then instantly 'save copy as a static text' for review, publication, etc. If I understand it correctly, fields are placeholders by themselves, only more complicated and not readable, something like:

ADDIN CITAVI.PLACEHOLDER 222548fc-9498-4e42-a826-f76e40e298cc more random symbols

To summarize, I'm ok with placeholders working only via Word add-in, but plain text placeholders, marks, IDs (whatever you may call them) are the key feature here that solves a lot of various issues.

photo
4

I would strongly support the idea of plain text placeholders. I am a faithful citavi user for several years, it is a great tool that has helped me a lot with my work, the support is fantastic - but with citavi6 and the exclusive shift to "fields" citavi has lost any use to me. I understand the support team has to defend the citavi decision of quitting the placeholders, still I'm convinced that, as the discussion shows, citavi6 strongly reduces the usability of your programme for the humanities.

photo
photo
2

Regarding the patent in the US: I understand that you don't want to be involved in litigation in the US. But it is also worth noting that bibtex has used the placeholder method since the 1980s so that I doubt that the relevant parts of the patent are actually valid. Since I am by no means an expert on this, I have asked this question here:

https://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/19678/does-patent-us20120072422a1-make-it-illegal-for-other-companies-to-sell-referenc/19679

As regards the problem of generating unique identifiers: I see that this can no longer be done as previously (upon generation of the new record) but in order to use these numbers in placeholders, this is not necessary. Since the creation of such a n ID-number is a one-time action for each record (and hence extremely rare) it would, for example, be possible to allow users to manually trigger the creation of the ID when s/he knows that there is no parallel offline use going on.

For single users (which, I suppose, are still the majority of Citavi users) this would be very easy to determine. In the case of multi-user projects, this would require some communication among project memberd to make sure that everyone pulls a new copy of the database next time they use it. But for those teams that want to use placeholders, this is surely feasible.