Vote here if you want a Citavi add-on for Scrivener!
Scrivener is a writing suite that many of us think provide a better way of organising material and structuring ideas than Word. It is a genuine writer's tool and is gaining increasing adaptation and support by academics. https://www.literatureandlatte.com/scrivener/overview
Citavi 5 had a workaround that could be used with it. Citavi 6 does not. Citavi's current position is:
"We understand that Scrivener is an important part of your workflow and that it has worked with Citavi 5.
The current idea could be to offer an additional add-in for Scrivener.
However, we are still waiting for more reactions on the topic from other users."
In other words - if you want Citavi to do this, vote for this idea.
Citavi: as Jen says today that the current idea is to offer an additional add-in, please can you not set the status of this idea as "declined", but "under consideration"? At least until you see if it gets some support? :) Many thanks!
Elin
I like this idea
Great idea!
Great idea!
Such an add-in would be great.
Such an add-in would be great.
Citavi Scrivener Add-in is a great solution for both Scrivener and Citavi communities :)
Citavi Scrivener Add-in is a great solution for both Scrivener and Citavi communities :)
The related discussion can be found here: https://help.citavi.com/en/topic/citavi-6-and-scrivener
The related discussion can be found here: https://help.citavi.com/en/topic/citavi-6-and-scrivener
Dear developers! Are there any news on the subject? Do you plan to make the add-on for Citavi or some other way to use Citavi with Scrivener?
Dear developers! Are there any news on the subject? Do you plan to make the add-on for Citavi or some other way to use Citavi with Scrivener?
Hi,
there are currently no news regarding an add-on for Scrivener
Best regards
Sebastian
Hi,
there are currently no news regarding an add-on for Scrivener
Best regards
Sebastian
Ist dieser Konvertierungsprozess verlustfrei?
Ist dieser Konvertierungsprozess verlustfrei?
YES, great idea!!
YES, great idea!!
Scrivener + Citavi = Wings for your writing!!!
Scrivener + Citavi = Wings for your writing!!!
plus 1
and again plus 1
for the dream team
Scrivener & Citavi !!!!
please...
plus 1
and again plus 1
for the dream team
Scrivener & Citavi !!!!
please...
Any news on Scrivener support? I seriously start to consider looking for a new reference manager..
Any news on Scrivener support? I seriously start to consider looking for a new reference manager..
Go for it - many peopla hardly wait - make it happen. Thanks in advance.
Go for it - many peopla hardly wait - make it happen. Thanks in advance.
I just discovered Citavi in for a new project and it changed my workflow tremendously. As a discovery writer that creates structure during the process, I experience it to be very helpful. It would be a dream if I could continue using Citavi.
I just discovered Citavi in for a new project and it changed my workflow tremendously. As a discovery writer that creates structure during the process, I experience it to be very helpful. It would be a dream if I could continue using Citavi.
And please let's discuss the obstacles: Too expensive? Too complex? Too little time? Let the fans try crowdfunding. Then an external programmer does it and Citavi just has to give some hints because of the api. For an unofficial tool you wouldn't have to take over any support. So the effort on the part of Citavi would be almost 0, so why oppose it? ;-)
And please let's discuss the obstacles: Too expensive? Too complex? Too little time? Let the fans try crowdfunding. Then an external programmer does it and Citavi just has to give some hints because of the api. For an unofficial tool you wouldn't have to take over any support. So the effort on the part of Citavi would be almost 0, so why oppose it? ;-)
Obviously, I can't speak for the Citavi Team, but similar requests pop up quite frequently in the Zotero forums as well (e.g. here), and the answer has been that this is impossible due to a non-existing plugin api on the Scrivener side. So I guess the same would apply for a Citavi add on. So I don't think crowdfunding or external help would be of much help here, even if the effort for Citavi devs would be -500.
Obviously, I can't speak for the Citavi Team, but similar requests pop up quite frequently in the Zotero forums as well (e.g. here), and the answer has been that this is impossible due to a non-existing plugin api on the Scrivener side. So I guess the same would apply for a Citavi add on. So I don't think crowdfunding or external help would be of much help here, even if the effort for Citavi devs would be -500.
Thank you very much for letting us know about your interest in an add-in for Scrivener! Unfortunately, we have had to decline this request for reasons I'll explain below.
As some of you know, it used to be possible to use Citavi with Scrivener by inserting Citavi placeholders into Scrivener and then formatting the document created with Scrivener in Citavi. With Citavi 6 we stopped using the placeholder method both for technical reasons and because placeholders cannot be used in the United States due to a patent claim there.
The Word Add-In now only works with dynamic fields that update automatically if reference information is changed. To create something similar for Scrivener, it would need to be possible for Citavi to communicate with Scrivener via an add-on interface, also known as an API. Unfortunately, Scrivener does not offer any kind of API. Over the years we have written to the Scrivener support team a number of times to ask if an API was planned. Although our messages were forwarded to the development team, we were told that an API was not available and was not currently planned.
We currently have a number of requests for integration with other word processors, including LibreOffice/OpenOffice, Google Docs and Softmaker in addition to Scrivener. So, even if Scrivener does offer an API in the future, we still will need to carefully consider the potential user base of an add-in for Scrivener compared to some of the other writing tools out there.
Many thanks for your understanding, and please accept my apologies for this disappointing update.
Regards,
Peter
Thank you very much for letting us know about your interest in an add-in for Scrivener! Unfortunately, we have had to decline this request for reasons I'll explain below.
As some of you know, it used to be possible to use Citavi with Scrivener by inserting Citavi placeholders into Scrivener and then formatting the document created with Scrivener in Citavi. With Citavi 6 we stopped using the placeholder method both for technical reasons and because placeholders cannot be used in the United States due to a patent claim there.
The Word Add-In now only works with dynamic fields that update automatically if reference information is changed. To create something similar for Scrivener, it would need to be possible for Citavi to communicate with Scrivener via an add-on interface, also known as an API. Unfortunately, Scrivener does not offer any kind of API. Over the years we have written to the Scrivener support team a number of times to ask if an API was planned. Although our messages were forwarded to the development team, we were told that an API was not available and was not currently planned.
We currently have a number of requests for integration with other word processors, including LibreOffice/OpenOffice, Google Docs and Softmaker in addition to Scrivener. So, even if Scrivener does offer an API in the future, we still will need to carefully consider the potential user base of an add-in for Scrivener compared to some of the other writing tools out there.
Many thanks for your understanding, and please accept my apologies for this disappointing update.
Regards,
Peter
Many thanks for all of the comments - we know it's a big disappointment. I'll try to answer some of the main points that have been made below:
We currently do not just support Word for Windows but also various LaTeX editors for Windows and online LaTeX editors. We also do offer an add-on interface already.
With the release of Citavi Web, we will also offer support for Word for Mac, Word Online, and Google Docs (for cloud projects), which should then cover about 90% of our users.
We would love to support other programs, too, but, as a small company, we have to make decisions based on the number of developers we have and the features that will impact the greatest number of users. And yes, these questions naturally involve economic considerations as well, since we want Citavi to be around for many years to come. For that same reason, we do not want to risk a patent dispute in the United States (and we did offer two different versions for a long time for this reason, which was cumbersome and led to a fair amount of support questions).
As discussed in other threads, there were a number of reasons it was deemed necessary to remove placeholders, and it wasn't a decision that was made lightly. And just because there are other possible solutions to the placeholder problem, it doesn't mean that they are a better option when everything is taken into account. We are very sorry that this decision has negatively impacted all of you, but we would not have made it if we were not certain that it would benefit the Citavi user community as a whole.
Many thanks for all of the comments - we know it's a big disappointment. I'll try to answer some of the main points that have been made below:
We currently do not just support Word for Windows but also various LaTeX editors for Windows and online LaTeX editors. We also do offer an add-on interface already.
With the release of Citavi Web, we will also offer support for Word for Mac, Word Online, and Google Docs (for cloud projects), which should then cover about 90% of our users.
We would love to support other programs, too, but, as a small company, we have to make decisions based on the number of developers we have and the features that will impact the greatest number of users. And yes, these questions naturally involve economic considerations as well, since we want Citavi to be around for many years to come. For that same reason, we do not want to risk a patent dispute in the United States (and we did offer two different versions for a long time for this reason, which was cumbersome and led to a fair amount of support questions).
As discussed in other threads, there were a number of reasons it was deemed necessary to remove placeholders, and it wasn't a decision that was made lightly. And just because there are other possible solutions to the placeholder problem, it doesn't mean that they are a better option when everything is taken into account. We are very sorry that this decision has negatively impacted all of you, but we would not have made it if we were not certain that it would benefit the Citavi user community as a whole.
"We also do offer an add-on interface already. "
If this add-on interface makes it already possible to kind of rebuild the Word plugin functionality for other programs, this is wonderful! Then the Scrivener fans here only have to organize themselves to solve the problem (as I said, first collect money with crowdfunding and then engage some freelancer, with enough people it won't be expensive. For example, this has already been done successfully for the creation of specific Firefox addons).
As far as I'm concerned, a plugin for Word on macOS will make me perfectly happy.
Thank you for the detailed answer.
"We also do offer an add-on interface already. "
If this add-on interface makes it already possible to kind of rebuild the Word plugin functionality for other programs, this is wonderful! Then the Scrivener fans here only have to organize themselves to solve the problem (as I said, first collect money with crowdfunding and then engage some freelancer, with enough people it won't be expensive. For example, this has already been done successfully for the creation of specific Firefox addons).
As far as I'm concerned, a plugin for Word on macOS will make me perfectly happy.
Thank you for the detailed answer.
I want to add that while 90% of current users are likely supported by the programs you mention, I would say that 90% of historians I know in the USA (at least those on the younger side) are using Scrivener. I have self-proclaimed as a Citavi promoter in the USA after learning about it from a German colleague, and this has gotten some attention on Twitter. But the lack of ability to play with Scrivener will present a challenge in expanding to the US market (at least in the humanities) whenever you decide to make that a priority.
I want to add that while 90% of current users are likely supported by the programs you mention, I would say that 90% of historians I know in the USA (at least those on the younger side) are using Scrivener. I have self-proclaimed as a Citavi promoter in the USA after learning about it from a German colleague, and this has gotten some attention on Twitter. But the lack of ability to play with Scrivener will present a challenge in expanding to the US market (at least in the humanities) whenever you decide to make that a priority.
My two cents here... The economic question is not about current customers. It's about future customers and growing the business... I can't stress this point any more strongly!!! So, now the question about two versions... Why not let users make the choice whether they want the capability of place holders or they want a version suited for cloud use in a simple radio button?? Then, if you're really worried about legal challenges, put legal words that say that users accept all liability for this version in a pop up as part of the installation process... Personally, I think you're over-emphasizing/over-thinking the seriousness of the POTENTIAL legal challenge you bring up... So, there you have the part of a technical solution, a process solution, and a legal solution...
Now to the problem of the effort required to build this capability... I'm more than willing to lead a GoFundMe program. BUT.m what I need from you is a level of effort required to make this happen. What is the dollar/euro amount it's going to take to produce this functionality??? Similarly, what would be the plan to make it happen? If we know that, then we can create a funding scheme for people to put their money where their mouths are...
So, now is back to you Citavi... Users have spoken, will you listen?
My two cents here... The economic question is not about current customers. It's about future customers and growing the business... I can't stress this point any more strongly!!! So, now the question about two versions... Why not let users make the choice whether they want the capability of place holders or they want a version suited for cloud use in a simple radio button?? Then, if you're really worried about legal challenges, put legal words that say that users accept all liability for this version in a pop up as part of the installation process... Personally, I think you're over-emphasizing/over-thinking the seriousness of the POTENTIAL legal challenge you bring up... So, there you have the part of a technical solution, a process solution, and a legal solution...
Now to the problem of the effort required to build this capability... I'm more than willing to lead a GoFundMe program. BUT.m what I need from you is a level of effort required to make this happen. What is the dollar/euro amount it's going to take to produce this functionality??? Similarly, what would be the plan to make it happen? If we know that, then we can create a funding scheme for people to put their money where their mouths are...
So, now is back to you Citavi... Users have spoken, will you listen?
Citavi is all about support for serious writers. Since Scrivener is used by many folks in that category it would be worthwhile to develop some add-in to make it easy to use with that platform. I guess it's all about investment and return, in the broadest sense of those terms. The Citavi team seem to me to be motivated by more than cost/benefit, so I hope they explore the feasibility of that option. In my case, I'm evaluating Scrivener for purchase and one 'con' is that it does not have the Citavi add-in. So maybe Scrivener staff should be involved in the discussion as well.
Citavi is all about support for serious writers. Since Scrivener is used by many folks in that category it would be worthwhile to develop some add-in to make it easy to use with that platform. I guess it's all about investment and return, in the broadest sense of those terms. The Citavi team seem to me to be motivated by more than cost/benefit, so I hope they explore the feasibility of that option. In my case, I'm evaluating Scrivener for purchase and one 'con' is that it does not have the Citavi add-in. So maybe Scrivener staff should be involved in the discussion as well.
Replies have been locked on this page!