AutoRefs vs. EndNote

EndNote does a great job of working with scientific references and preparing citations for peer-reviewed publications. The tool is also great for generating and placing graphics in scholarly publications. However, in a situation where the reference style does not follow traditional journals or standard formats, or where citation of websites and/or government documents is needed, the program experiences challenges due to the difficulty of generating your own styles.

Incentivized

• Citation insertion
• Easy merge and updation of documents with cited references
• Bibliography compilation and maintenance
• Better integrated tools with other applications

Incentivized

• The reading pdf feature could be improved
• removing duplicates can be tricky
• journal abbreviations are difficult to manage and usually require manual input

Incentivized

Support seems to be good both on the technical side of the software the actual usage of the software. We have encountered minor as well as some major issues especially during upgrades but were able to work through them very quickly with the help of the support team and this allowed us to stay on track when there have been time crunches.

Incentivized

Although Mendeley has comparable functionality, the two applications are not compatible, and it is harder to import non-formatted citations into Mendeley. However, Mendeley does offer superior analytics compared to EndNote. I continue to use EndNote due to a history of successful use of EndNote and the widespread use of the app by my peers.

Incentivized

• Saves a minimum of 10 hours of author rework and review of citations per publication
• Decreased editor labor budget by ~20%
• Ease of introduction of new primary authors for scholarly publications

Incentivized