background_literature.bib

@article{2017_kratochvil,
  title = {Comparison of the {{Accuracy}} of {{Bibliographical References Generated}} for {{Medical Citation Styles}} by {{EndNote}}, {{Mendeley}}, {{RefWorks}} and {{Zotero}}},
  volume = {43},
  issn = {0099-1333},
  doi = {10.1016/j.acalib.2016.09.001},
  abstract = {Bibliographical references to online and printed articles, books, contributions to edited books and web resources generated by EndNote, Mendeley, RefWorks and Zotero were compared with manually written references according to the citation instructions in 15 biomedical journals and the NLM citation style. The fewest mistakes were detected in references generated by Zotero for 11 journals and the NLM style, while the second fewest number of mistakes was found in Mendeley. The largest number of mistakes for 9 journals was found in references generated by EndNote and in the other 4 journals the largest number of mistakes was detected in RefWorks references. With regard to the individual types of resources, the lowest number of mistakes was shown by Zotero, while RefWorks had the greatest number of mistakes. All programs had problems especially with generating the URL and the date of access in the reference to online documents. It was also found that several mistakes were caused by technical limitations of the reference managers, while other mistakes originated due to incorrect setting of the citation styles. A comparison showed that Zotero and Mendeley are the most suitable managers.},
  number = {1},
  urldate = {2017-11-28},
  url = {http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0099133316302294},
  journal = {The Journal of Academic Librarianship},
  author = {Kratochv{\'\i}l, Ji{\v r}{\'\i}},
  month = jan,
  year = {2017},  pages = {57-66},

}@article{2015_rathbone,
  title = {Better Duplicate Detection for Systematic Reviewers: Evaluation of {{Systematic Review Assistant}}-{{Deduplication Module}}},
  volume = {4},
  issn = {2046-4053},
  shorttitle = {Better Duplicate Detection for Systematic Reviewers},
  doi = {10.1186/2046-4053-4-6},
  abstract = {A major problem arising from searching across bibliographic databases is the retrieval of duplicate citations. Removing such duplicates is an essential task to ensure systematic reviewers do not waste time screening the same citation multiple times. Although reference management software use algorithms to remove duplicate records, this is only partially successful and necessitates removing the remaining duplicates manually. This time-consuming task leads to wasted resources. We sought to evaluate the effectiveness of a newly developed deduplication program against EndNote.},
  urldate = {2017-11-28},
  url = {https://doi.org/10.1186/2046-4053-4-6},
  journal = {Systematic Reviews},
  author = {Rathbone, John and Carter, Matt and Hoffmann, Tammy and Glasziou, Paul},
  month = jan,
  year = {2015},  pages = {6},

}@article{2011_king,
  title = {Using Bibliographic Software to Appraise and Code Data in Educational Systematic Review Research},
  volume = {33},
  issn = {0142-159X},
  doi = {10.3109/0142159X.2011.558138},
  abstract = {Background: Bibliographic database software is often recommended as a tool that can assist researchers in managing the large numbers of references produced in early stages of a systematic review. The uses of such software in systematic review research are often represented solely in terms of bibliographic functions, while the uses that extend beyond simple bibliographic functions have not been explored.Aims: This article provides a guide on how to use extended functions of bibliographic software to systematically complete the steps of appraising search results and coding references for inclusion in or exclusion from the systematic review.Methods: The process is illustrated using an ongoing systematic review as a case description and using screenshots from the bibliographic database, EndNote\textregistered, the authors' preferred software program for the study.Results: The case description illustrates how bibliographic software serves not only to organize and store search results, but also to appraise and code search results and to explicitly track researchers' decisions across the systematic review.Conclusion: Bibliographic tools can contribute to make the methods that researchers adopt for the phase following the initial literature search more transparent and systematic. The illustrative case description involves a systematic review of academic education in occupational therapy, but easily generalizes to systematic reviews in other health science professions.},
  number = {9},
  urldate = {2017-11-28},
  url = {https://doi.org/10.3109/0142159X.2011.558138},
  journal = {Medical Teacher},
  author = {King, Robin and Hooper, Barbara and Wood, Wendy},
  month = sep,
  year = {2011},  pages = {719-723},

}@inproceedings{2015_marshalla,
  address = {New York, NY, USA},
  series = {EASE '15},
  title = {Tools to {{Support Systematic Reviews}} in {{Software Engineering}}: {{A Cross}}-Domain {{Survey Using Semi}}-Structured {{Interviews}}},
  isbn = {978-1-4503-3350-4},
  shorttitle = {Tools to {{Support Systematic Reviews}} in {{Software Engineering}}},
  doi = {10.1145/2745802.2745827},
  abstract = {Background: A number of software tools are being developed to support systematic reviewers within the software engineering domain. However, at present, we are not sure which aspects of the review process can most usefully be supported by such tools or what characteristics of the tools are most important to reviewers. Aim: The aim of the study is to explore the scope and practice of tool support for systematic reviewers in other disciplines. Method: Researchers with experience of performing systematic reviews in Healthcare and the Social Sciences were surveyed. Qualitative data was collected through semi-structured interviews and data analysis followed an inductive approach. Results: 13 interviews were carried out. 21 software tools categorised into one of seven types were identified. Reference managers were the most commonly mentioned tools. Features considered particularly important by participants were support for multiple users, support for data extraction and support for tool maintenance. The features and importance levels identified by participants were compared with those proposed for tools to support systematic reviews in software engineering. Conclusions: Many problems faced by systematic reviewers in other disciplines are similar to those faced in software engineering. There is general consensus across domains that improved tools are needed.},
  urldate = {2017-11-28},
  url = {http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/2745802.2745827},
  booktitle = {Proceedings of the 19th {{International Conference}} on {{Evaluation}} and {{Assessment}} in {{Software Engineering}}},
  publisher = {{ACM}},
  author = {Marshall, Christopher and Brereton, Pearl and Kitchenham, Barbara},
  year = {2015},  pages = {26:1--26:6},

}@phdthesis{2012_francese,
  address = {Oslo},
  type = {Master Thesis : {{International Master}} in {{Digital Library Learning}}},
  title = {Reference {{Management Software}} as {{Digital Libraries}}: A Survey at the {{University}} of {{Torino}}},
  urldate = {2017-11-27},
  url = {http://hdl.handle.net/10642/1274},
  school = {H{\o}gskolen i Oslo},
  author = {Francese, Enrico},
  year = {2012},
}@article{2013_lorenzetti,
  title = {Reference Management Software for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: An Exploration of Usage and Usability},
  volume = {13},
  issn = {1471-2288},
  shorttitle = {Reference Management Software for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses},
  doi = {10.1186/1471-2288-13-141},
  abstract = {Background
Reference management software programs enable researchers to more easily organize and manage large volumes of references typically identified during the production of systematic reviews. The purpose of this study was to determine the extent to which authors are using reference management software to produce systematic reviews; identify which programs are used most frequently and rate their ease of use; and assess the degree to which software usage is documented in published studies.Methods
We reviewed the full text of systematic reviews published in core clinical journals indexed in ACP Journal Club from 2008 to November 2011 to determine the extent to which reference management software usage is reported in published reviews. We surveyed corresponding authors to verify and supplement information in published reports, and gather frequency and ease-of-use data on individual reference management programs.Results
Of the 78 researchers who responded to our survey, 79.5\% reported that they had used a reference management software package to prepare their review. Of these, 4.8\% reported this usage in their published studies. EndNote, Reference Manager, and RefWorks were the programs of choice for more than 98\% of authors who used this software. Comments with respect to ease-of-use issues focused on the integration of this software with other programs and computer interfaces, and the sharing of reference databases among researchers.Conclusions
Despite underreporting of use, reference management software is frequently adopted by authors of systematic reviews. The transparency, reproducibility and quality of systematic reviews may be enhanced through increased reporting of reference management software usage.},
  urldate = {2017-11-27},
  url = {https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3830982/},
  journal = {BMC Medical Research Methodology},
  author = {Lorenzetti, Diane L and Ghali, William A},
  month = nov,
  year = {2013},  pages = {141},  pmid = {24237877},
  pmcid = {PMC3830982}
}@article{2017_lonergan,
  title = {Reference Management Software Preferences among Liberal Arts Faculty},
  volume = {45},
  issn = {0090-7324},
  doi = {10.1108/RSR-06-2017-0024},
  abstract = {Purpose - The purpose of this study was to determine faculty preferences and attitudes regarding reference management software (RMS) to improve the library's support and training programs. Design/methodology/approach - A short, online survey was emailed to approximately 272 faculty. Findings - Survey results indicated that multiple RMS were in use, with faculty preferring Zotero over the library-supported RefWorks. More than 40 per cent did not use any RMS. Research limitations/implications - The relatively short length of the survey precluded a more detailed investigation of faculty attitudes. The 20 per cent response rate, although typical of surveys of this type, may over-represent those faculty who have strong attitudes toward RMS. These findings support the necessity of doing more research to establish the parameters of the RMS environment among faculty, with implications for support, instruction and outreach at the institutional level. Practical implications - Surveys should be conducted to establish local faculty RMS usage and preferences, as they may differ from both published findings and local expectations. Because it is unlikely that faculty will overwhelmingly use one RMS, libraries should plan to support multiple RMS. Originality/value - This study is among the first to investigate the issue of RMS faculty preferences in a liberal arts setting.},
  language = {English},
  number = {4},
  journal = {Reference Services Review},
  author = {Lonergan, Nicholas},
  year = {2017},  pages = {584-595},  note = {WOS:000416691200005}
}@article{2016_nilashi,
  title = {Features {{Influencing Researchers}}' {{Selection}} of {{Reference Management Software}}},
  volume = {15},
  issn = {0219-6492},
  doi = {10.1142/S0219649216500325},
  abstract = {Reference management software (RMS) is the most important aspect that is essential for all levels of researchers. They are established as research tools to help scholars in organising their work, improving workflows, and ultimately saving time. Choosing an appropriate RMS for managing records and utilising the bibliographic citation has been a challenge among researchers. They always seek for the features of an appropriate RMS prior to making an investment to buy the software. In this paper, a fuzzy logic approach is adopted for assessing the features of RMS from the researchers' perspectives. Accordingly, a web-based survey was conducted and data collected from the researchers who had experience with different types of RMS. Then, we analyse the effects of RMS features on researcher perception in selecting an appropriate reference management program and find the importance level of those features. This study provides a toolset for RMS developers to identify the importance level of RMS features and accordingly consider these important features in developing the next generation of citation management software.},
  number = {03},
  urldate = {2018-01-15},
  url = {http://www.worldscientific.com/doi/abs/10.1142/S0219649216500325},
  journal = {Journal of Information \& Knowledge Management},
  author = {Nilashi, Mehrbakhsh and Ibrahim, Othman and Sohaei, Shamila and Ahmadi, Hossein and Almaee, Alireza},
  month = jun,
  year = {2016},  pages = {1650032},

}@article{2015_tramullasa,
  title = {Studies and {{Analysis}} of {{Reference Management Software}}: {{A Literature Review}}},
  volume = {24},
  issn = {1386-6710},
  shorttitle = {Studies and {{Analysis}} of {{Reference Management Software}}},
  doi = {10.3145/epi.2015.sep.17},
  abstract = {Reference management software is a well-known tool for scientific research work. Since the 1980s, it has been the subject of reviews and evaluations in library and information science literature. This paper presents a systematic review of published studies that evaluate reference management software with a comparative approach. The objective is to identify the types, models, and evaluation criteria that authors have adopted, in order to determine whether the methods used provide adequate methodological rigor and useful contributions to the field of study.},
  language = {English},
  number = {5},
  journal = {Profesional De La Informacion},
  author = {Tramullas, Jesus and Sanchez-Casabon, Ana I. and Garrido-Picazo, Piedad},
  year = {SEP-OCT 2015},  pages = {680-688},  note = {WOS:000362965200017}
}@article{2015_rempel,
  title = {Bibliographic {{Management Tool Adoption}} and {{Use A Qualitative Research Study Using}} the {{UTAUT Model}}},
  volume = {54},
  issn = {1094-9054},
  doi = {10.5860/rusq.54n4.43},
  abstract = {This study explores how researchers choose a bibliographic management tool and what makes them continue using this tool. This exploratory, observational study combined a naturalistic work-practice method, interviews, and journal reflections to collect qualitative research data from researchers actively using a bibliographic management tool. The unified theory of acceptance and use of technology (UTAUT) model was used as a guiding framework to help provide a better understanding of these researchers' bibliographic management adoption and use behaviors. Findings indicate participants adopt tools because of an expectation of enhanced research productivity, but participants persist in using the tools because of ease-of-use experiences. Librarians were found to have opportunities to influence tool adoption decisions but may have somewhat less influence over researchers' decisions to continue using bibliographic management tools.},
  language = {English},
  number = {4},
  journal = {Reference \& User Services Quarterly},
  author = {Rempel, Hannah Gascho and Mellinger, Margaret},
  year = {SUM 2015},  pages = {43-53},  note = {WOS:000357030400008}
}@article{2015_melles,
  title = {Examining the {{Reference Management Practices}} of {{Humanities}} and {{Social Science Postgraduate Students}} and {{Academics}}},
  volume = {46},
  issn = {0004-8623},
  doi = {10.1080/00048623.2015.1104790},
  abstract = {An examination of Library and Information Studies literature about scholarly communication reveals that less attention has been paid to the outcomes of reference management instruction in academic libraries than on comparisons and evaluations of reference management software (RMS) and surveys of levels of its use. While there are studies examining the reference management practices of academics and students, the practices of those not using RMS have remained largely unexplored. This article reports on the findings of a small-scale applied research project aimed at understanding the reference management practices of postgraduate students and academics in the Arts Faculty at Monash University. A questionnaire was completed by 81 students and semi-structured interviews were conducted with 8 students and 13 academics in the Faculty. Analysis shows that the reference management practices detailed in this study are individual and personal, and do not always involve the use of RMS. The reasons for adopting these practices are informed by a wide range of institutional and personal factors. RMS use itself is also varied, with few of the interviewees utilising all the core features of the software. A broader approach to reference management instruction and support would increase the relevance of library instruction.},
  language = {English},
  number = {4},
  journal = {Australian Academic \& Research Libraries},
  author = {Melles, Anne and Unsworth, Kathryn},
  month = oct,
  year = {2015},  pages = {249-274},  note = {WOS:000368196600003}
}@article{2016_bramer,
  title = {De-Duplication of Database Search Results for Systematic Reviews in {{EndNote}}},
  volume = {104},
  copyright = {Copyright (c) 2016 Wichor M. Bramer, Dean Giustini, Gerdien B. de Jonge, Leslie Holland, Tanja Bekhuis},
  issn = {1558-9439},
  doi = {10.5195/jmla.2016.24},
  language = {en},
  number = {3},
  urldate = {2018-01-18},
  url = {http://jmla.pitt.edu/ojs/jmla/article/view/24},
  journal = {Journal of the Medical Library Association},
  author = {Bramer, Wichor M. and Giustini, Dean and de Jonge, Gerdien B. and Holland, Leslie and Bekhuis, Tanja},
  month = sep,
  year = {2016},  pages = {240-242},

}@article{2017_bramer,
  title = {Reviewing Retrieved References for Inclusion in Systematic Reviews Using {{EndNote}}},
  volume = {105},
  copyright = {Copyright (c) 2016 Wichor M. Bramer},
  issn = {1558-9439},
  doi = {10.5195/jmla.2017.111},
  abstract = {Not applicable},
  language = {en},
  number = {1},
  urldate = {2018-01-18},
  url = {http://jmla.pitt.edu/ojs/jmla/article/view/111},
  journal = {Journal of the Medical Library Association},
  author = {Bramer, Wichor M. and Milic, Jelena and Mast, Frans},
  month = jan,
  year = {2017},  pages = {84-87},

}@inproceedings{2016_kaur,
  title = {Comparative Study of Citation and Reference Management Tools: {{Mendeley}}, {{Zotero}} and {{ReadCube}}},
  isbn = {978-1-5090-5515-9},
  shorttitle = {Comparative Study of Citation and Reference Management Tools},
  doi = {10.1109/ICTBIG.2016.7892715},
  abstract = {Citation and reference management tools help
researchers to collect and organize references in their research
papers. The paper introduces an open-source citation and
reference management tools called Mendeley, ReadCube and
Zotero. The paper demonstrates the main features, comparison
of tools, advantages and disadvantages with screenshots.},
  urldate = {2018-01-18},
  url = {http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/7892715/},
  publisher = {{IEEE}},
  author = {Kaur, Sukhpreet and Dhindsa, Kanwalvir Singh},
  year = {2016},  pages = {1-5},

}@article{2017_bramera,
  title = {Updating Search Strategies for Systematic Reviews Using {{EndNote}}},
  volume = {105},
  copyright = {Copyright (c) 2017 Wichor Bramer, Paul Bain},
  issn = {1558-9439},
  doi = {10.5195/jmla.2017.183},
  abstract = {A new method is described to update search strategies in multiple databases without the use of date limits. By deduplication of~the most~recent EndNote library with the EndNote library created at the time of the earlier search only recently added references or older references~now retrieved by a changed search strategy remain.},
  language = {en},
  number = {3},
  urldate = {2018-01-18},
  url = {http://jmla.mlanet.org/ojs/jmla/article/view/183},
  journal = {Journal of the Medical Library Association},
  author = {Bramer, Wichor and Bain, Paul},
  month = jul,
  year = {2017},  pages = {285-289},

}@article{2017_peters,
  title = {Managing and {{Coding References}} for {{Systematic Reviews}} and {{Scoping Reviews}} in {{EndNote}}},
  volume = {36},
  issn = {0276-3869, 1540-9597},
  doi = {10.1080/02763869.2017.1259891},
  abstract = {This article describes a novel approach for using EndNote to manage and code references in the conduct and reporting of systematic reviews and scoping reviews. The process is simple and easy for reviewers new to both EndNote and systematic reviews. This process allows reviewers to easily conduct and report systematic reviews in line with the internationally recognized PRISMA reporting guidelines and also facilitates the overall task of systematic or scoping review conduct and reporting from the initial search through to structuring the results, discussion, and conclusions in a rigorous, reproducible, and user-friendly manner.},
  language = {en},
  number = {1},
  urldate = {2018-01-18},
  url = {https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/02763869.2017.1259891},
  journal = {Medical Reference Services Quarterly},
  author = {Peters, Micah D. J.},
  month = jan,
  year = {2017},  pages = {19-31},

}@article{2015_perkel,
  title = {Eight Ways to Clean a Digital Library},
  volume = {527},
  doi = {10.1038/527123a},
  abstract = {Scientists have a surfeit of options to choose from in the competitive market of reference-management software.},
  language = {en},
  number = {7576},
  urldate = {2018-01-19},
  url = {http://www.nature.com/news/eight-ways-to-clean-a-digital-library-1.18695},
  journal = {Nature News},
  author = {Perkel, Jeffrey M.},
  month = nov,
  year = {2015},  pages = {123},

}@article{2013_emanuel,
  title = {Users and Citation Management Tools: {{Use}} and Support},
  volume = {41},
  doi = {10.1108/RSR-02-2013-0007},
  abstract = {Purpose: As the number of citation management tools including Refworks and EndNote increased in recent years, academic libraries struggle to remain on top of new developments and support all of the tools used by their users. This paper seeks to address these issues. Design/methodology/approach: A librarian at the University of Illinois surveyed graduate students and faculty about which tools they use, reasons for tool adoption, features that influence adoption, and support they expect from their library. Findings: The results highlight that many users still use older tools including EndNote and RefWorks, but do have interests for and reasons to use new tools including Zotero and Mendeley and may not need as much library support as librarians believe. Originality/value: This is the first research paper on citation management use and can influence what products libraries use and the support they offer.},
  number = {4},
  url = {https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2-s2.0-84886513274\&doi=10.1108\%2fRSR-02-2013-0007\&partnerID=40\&md5=35b965041ae1bd717c28bc33a89e3516},
  journal = {Reference Services Review},
  author = {Emanuel, J.},
  year = {2013},  pages = {639-659},

}@article{2012_geel,
  title = {{{PubLight}}: {{Managing}} Publications Using a Task-Oriented Approach},
  volume = {7489 LNCS},
  doi = {10.1007/978-3-642-33290-6_39},
  abstract = {We report on the development of a powerful and task-oriented tool for the management of research publications. The work was motivated by a survey showing that researchers still rely heavily on basic tools such as text editors for managing bibliographic data. We present the approach as well as the resulting tool, PubLight, and compare the features of this tool with existing reference management systems. \textcopyright{} 2012 Springer-Verlag.},
  url = {https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2-s2.0-84867679183\&doi=10.1007\%2f978-3-642-33290-6_39\&partnerID=40\&md5=58dd626803c5f7dcb0e0ec87b185a357},
  journal = {Lecture Notes in Computer Science (including subseries Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence and Lecture Notes in Bioinformatics)},
  author = {Geel, M. and Nebeling, M. and Norrie, M.C.},
  year = {2012},  pages = {363-369},

}@article{2014_homola,
  title = {Web-Based {{Citation Management Tools}}: {{Comparing}} the {{Accuracy}} of {{Their Electronic Journal Citations}}},
  volume = {40},
  issn = {0099-1333},
  shorttitle = {Web-Based {{Citation Management Tools}}},
  doi = {10.1016/j.acalib.2014.09.011},
  abstract = {Many students struggle when citing sources in their research papers and have turned to web-based citation tools in increasing numbers. In order to test the accuracy of the citations generated by these products, a sample of student-selected electronic journal articles was collected and MLA and APA citations for these articles were created using EBSCO Discovery Service's Cite tool, EndNote Basic, RefWorks, and Zotero. Although EndNote Basic, RefWorks and Zotero's APA citation error rates were significantly lower than that of EBSCO Discovery Service, none of the programs was capable of generating an error-free MLA electronic journal citation.},
  number = {6},
  urldate = {2018-01-19},
  url = {http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0099133314001761},
  journal = {The Journal of Academic Librarianship},
  author = {Homol, Lindley},
  month = nov,
  year = {2014},  pages = {552-557},

}@article{2016_brennana,
  title = {Simple Export of Journal Citation Data to {{Excel}} Using Any Reference Manager},
  volume = {104},
  issn = {1536-5050},
  doi = {10.3163/1536-5050.104.1.012},
  number = {1},
  urldate = {2018-01-19},
  url = {https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4722647/},
  journal = {Journal of the Medical Library Association : JMLA},
  author = {Brennan, David},
  month = jan,
  year = {2016},  pages = {72-75},  pmid = {26807057},
  pmcid = {PMC4722647}
}@inproceedings{2014_al-anazia,
  series = {Lecture Notes in Computer Science},
  title = {Personal {{Digital Libraries}}: {{Keeping Track}} of {{Academic Reading Material}}},
  isbn = {978-3-319-12822-1 978-3-319-12823-8},
  shorttitle = {Personal {{Digital Libraries}}},
  doi = {10.1007/978-3-319-12823-8_5},
  abstract = {This paper discusses optionsfor tracking academic reading material and introduces a personal digital library solution. We combined and extended the open source projects Zotero and Greenstone such that material can be easily downloaded and ingested into the combined system. Our prototype system has been explored in a small user study.},
  language = {en},
  urldate = {2018-01-19},
  url = {https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-319-12823-8_5},
  booktitle = {The {{Emergence}} of {{Digital Libraries}} \textendash{} {{Research}} and {{Practices}}},
  publisher = {{Springer, Cham}},
  author = {Al-Anazi, Mohammed and Hinze, Annika and Vanderschantz, Nicholas and Timpany, Claire and Cunningham, Sally Jo},
  month = nov,
  year = {2014},  pages = {39-47},

}@article{2018_kohl,
  title = {Online Tools Supporting the Conduct and Reporting of Systematic Reviews and Systematic Maps: A Case Study on {{CADIMA}} and Review of Existing Tools},
  volume = {7},
  issn = {2047-2382},
  shorttitle = {Online Tools Supporting the Conduct and Reporting of Systematic Reviews and Systematic Maps},
  doi = {10.1186/s13750-018-0115-5},
  abstract = {Systematic reviews and systematic maps represent powerful tools to identify, collect, evaluate and summarise primary research pertinent to a specific research question or topic in a highly standardised and reproducible manner. Even though they are seen as the ``gold standard'' when synthesising primary research, systematic reviews and maps are typically resource-intensive and complex activities. Thus, managing the conduct and reporting of such reviews can become a time consuming and challenging task. This paper introduces the open access online tool CADIMA, which was developed through a collaboration between the Julius K{\"u}hn-Institut and the Collaboration for Environmental Evidence, in order to increase the efficiency of the evidence synthesis process and facilitate reporting of all activities to maximise methodological rigour. Furthermore, we analyse how CADIMA compares with other available tools by providing a comprehensive summary of existing software designed for the purposes of systematic review management. We show that CADIMA is the only available open access tool that is designed to: (1) assist throughout the systematic review/map process; (2) be suited to reviews broader than medical sciences; (3) allow for offline data extraction; and, (4) support working as a review team.},
  urldate = {2018-02-05},
  url = {https://doi.org/10.1186/s13750-018-0115-5},
  journal = {Environmental Evidence},
  author = {Kohl, Christian and McIntosh, Emma J. and Unger, Stefan and Haddaway, Neal R. and Kecke, Steffen and Schiemann, Joachim and Wilhelm, Ralf},
  month = feb,
  year = {2018},  pages = {8},

}@article{2018_cahoy,
  title = {Leave the Browser behind: {{Placing}} Discovery within the User's Workflow},
  volume = {28},
  copyright = {Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:    Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a  Creative Commons Attribution License  that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.  Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.  Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (See  The Effect of Open Access ).  All third-party images reproduced on this journal are shared under Educational Fair Use. For more information on  Educational Fair Use , please see  this useful checklist prepared by Columbia University Libraries .   All copyright  of third-party content posted here for research purposes belongs to its original owners.  Unless otherwise stated all references to characters and comic art presented on this journal are \textcopyright, \textregistered{} or \texttrademark{} of their respective owners. No challenge to any owner's rights is intended or should be inferred.},
  issn = {2213-056X},
  shorttitle = {Leave the Browser Behind},
  doi = {10.18352/lq.10221},
  abstract = {As library discovery and delivery has largely moved online, the scholarly
workflow of academic researchers has become increasingly fragmented.
Faculty are using a variety of software solutions to find, retrieve, organize,
annotate, cite, and share information, including library resources. This
article discusses the significance of situating discovery, the act of finding
new information, within software central to the research workflow, such as
citation management software. The current status of discovery of library
resources within citation management software is outlined, along with
expected future developments. Utilizing findings from two Mellon funded
studies, it explores the challenges users face in managing their individual
scholarly workflows, and recommends optimizations designed to mitigate
information loss and increase researcher productivity.},
  language = {en},
  number = {1},
  urldate = {2018-03-08},
  url = {http://www.liberquarterly.eu/article/10.18352/lq.10221/},
  journal = {LIBER Quarterly},
  author = {Cahoy, Ellysa},
  month = feb,
  year = {2018},
}@article{2017_lubke,
  title = {Hacking the {{Literature Review}}: {{Opportunities}} and {{Innovations}} to {{Improve}} the {{Research Process}}},
  volume = {56},
  copyright = {Copyright (c) 2017 American Library Association},
  issn = {1094-9054},
  shorttitle = {Hacking the {{Literature Review}}},
  doi = {10.5860/rusq.56.4.285},
  abstract = {Research outputs across the academic disciplines are almost exclusively published electronically. Organizing and managing these digital resources for purposes of review, and with the technical savvy to do so, are now essential skills for graduate study and life in academia. Paradoxically, digital and web-based technologies provide greater ease and efficiency with which to gather mass amounts of information, while at the same time presenting new challenges for reading, analyzing, organizing, and storing resources. Students, scholars, and the librarians who support them must adopt and refine practices to convert from paper-full to paperless literature review. This article proposes a methodical, reproducible, three-stage process that harnesses the power digital tools bring to the research cycle, regardless of the user's preferred platform or operating system. Focusing just on the literature review phase, we develop a conceptual framework, illustrated with concrete tips and advice for storing and organizing, reading and annotating, and analyzing and writing. We demonstrate how a researcher's self-selected suite of tools may be used to complement and even overcome the limitations of comprehensive academic literature and composition platforms such as Docear and F1000Workspace, especially regarding qualitative data analysis software for analyzing and coding research literature. Using these techniques, librarians can become teachers and research partners supporting the skill development of faculty and students.},
  language = {en},
  number = {4},
  urldate = {2018-03-21},
  url = {https://journals.ala.org/index.php/rusq/article/view/6358},
  journal = {Reference \& User Services Quarterly},
  author = {Lubke, Jennifer and Paulus, Trena M. and Britt, Virginia G. and Atkins, David P.},
  month = jun,
  year = {2017},  pages = {285-295},

}