> Agreed. Google Scholar citations need very close proofreading, as they > can be erroneous or poorly formatted.
Thanks Matt - I'd agree with this, having seen oddities from google scholar. I emailed them ages ago about one problem (formatting of initials in author names), but never heard back... it is a pity that there is no mechanism for tidying up their references, as it seems to be the best thing out there that covers all the fields. Having said that, if google scholar can save me some typing, I'll happilyuse it as a starting point for a bibtex entry. I've just started using pdfmeat -- this is nice, as given a pdf, it outputs the corresponding bibtex entry from google scholar. Probably works similar to the way zotero does it, but can be used straight from the command line: http://code.google.com/p/pdfmeat/ (Warning: I couldn't get one of the python dependencies, unidecode, to work on mac, but it does work on ubuntu for me.) > accessed by bibsnarf are limited to math and sciences. Since I use > biblatex together with the Chicago Manual of Style, any bibtex entry I > clip has to be edited and tweaked substantially. (Indeed, manual editing > is unavoidable when using biblatex.) If its not too tangential, why do you use biblatex -- is it the future for bibtex? Thanks for summarising your workflow, very helpful. Stephen
