I have a bash file which does part of the organizing for me. But for the
script to work, it needs each paper to be named as
Author1Author2_SomeTitleYYYY.<pdf|ps|dvi|djvu> . I can provide more info
if you want. I have tried to refine the script for over 3 years, but
have only used it myself. :)
Nick Cummings wrote:
For a while I've really wanted to have some sort of database that would
allow me to keep track of papers relevant to my research. Basically,
right now I just download papers I find that are of interest, and put
them in a hierarchy of directories by subject. This has a couple of
problems: 1) It takes time to do the organizing. 2) The subject matter
of papers is not hierarchical, it's more of a web. 3) There's no easy
way to store metadata about the paper (e.g., author & title) such that
it can be browsed through without opening every paper. 4) No convenient
way to track read/unread status. 5) It's not searchable. I'm hoping
there's a piece of software one can use on Linux to help with this sort
of thing, either software specifically for this purpose or one that
could be adapted without very much work (or much programming
expertise). Surely some of you bright academics have tried to find a
solution to this sort of problem before. :-) I'm also open to web
services for these purposes, my only hesitation is that I may then end
up with my info locked into it with no possibility to migrate later.
I've come up with some idea for solutions, but none seem all that good:
1) I could simply keep a spreadsheet (or text file) with each paper's
associated information (bibliographic info, read/unread status,
tags/keywords) and the file name of the paper (if it exists). 2) Try to
use my BibTeX bibliographic database and Pybliographic GUI to keep track
of all the info about papers and, again, point to file locations (not
sure how feasible this is). 3) Hope I can find a URL for the abstract of
each paper and use del.icio.us to bookmark and tag each one. Make sure
to put all bibliographic info in the notes section.
Of those, #1 seems like the most plausible solution but far from ideal.
Regards,
Nick
