Zotero has a Word Plugin that creates and manages Microsoft Word "Fields" - like the fields that Microsoft Word has that manage automatic page numbering and automatic Table/Figure numbering. Thus, any sort of versioning that is native for Word will still be possible (which is quite limited in my experience). Zotero itself does not keep any records of any documents that you write in Word. It creates these Fields that reference the Bibliography information which is stored in the Word Document, itself. Thus, it will work even if you send it to someone who does not have Zotero installed. The importance of using the Zotero Groups is that if someone wants to add or edit existing citations, they need to have access to the same pool of documents that the other authors are using: hence the use of collaborative group libraries.
I hope that answers the question - although I know it is not the context in which you were hoping Zotero functioned!
Does Zotero offer any versioning of documents within Word if multiple authors are working on the same file at once? So is there a way for this system to check before uploading a word document kept in my Zotero group library how I would like to have the files updated or will it simply overwrite another user's progress if I sync my updates to a word file?
I've always found that these subscription based data-bases are a much more reliable sources then if you would go on google and find random websites. At least you would know for sure that the information presented is credible and also go into more detail. I definitely will start using these websites The more credible the information, the more in-depth the information is....the better!!
Thanks for bringing up the interesting questions. Here are some of my thoughts on this topic. I agree that the category "Gray" is as confusing as a category named Miscellaneous. With the new and emerging means of communication and "self-publishing", the Gray literature fields are even "grayer" than ever. Many of these new forms containing information very valuable and, more importantly, convenient to access for various audiences. We may be able to categorize some of them to the primary/secondary/tertiary literature (e.g. a technical report could be primary or tertiary resource) but we won't be able to do it with many of them. For example, a website like this one is easily accessible and contains somewhat trustworthy data and information. However, it's original purpose was to test cheminformatics technology not to disseminate the information on green solvent and the attempt to articulate the provenance of the information is incomplete. So, I am not quite sure if I'd categorize it as a scholarly resource but I would also hesitate to tell students that they cannot use it at all since the information itself is helpful. In this case, the key is to let student recognize the major components missing here ( i.e. how these rankings of green solvent were determined and by who) and also recognize the needs to seek for additional resources beyond this one.
Going back to your original questions, we define the "Gray" literature as those ones "not formalized by the community". They can be easily accessible and open to the public as the example mentioned above but can also be very locked down like an expensive trade report. Although we can't define them strictly as common knowledge or scholarly resources, we cannot simply deny their usefulness and certainly cannot keep people from using them. What we can do is to help people evaluate these resources case by case and use them wisely. The community may reach a consensus on how a certain type of sources can be categorized when it's used more broadly but there will always be new types emerging for the community to figure out.
In terms of citing them, it's, again, case by case. Some existing styles like ACS Styles started to include some rules for them, such as citing some of them as a "Webpage". It's not ideal but at least it ensures people include the URL and access dates to meet the traceable requirements of citing. Citing new forms of information like Wikipedia pages as a web page may meet the traceable requirement but may not meet giving credit and lending validity requirements due to the vagueness of authorship in the first place. But the bottom line is that if people are using these resources in a deliberated and reasonable way, they should not avoid citing them. We and the research community will work together bit-by-bit to find better ways of citing and credit attribution while using them.
In all, "Gray" may not be the best container label but we always need a container for emerging resources. I often times get excited when students discuss these resource with me since that's when they would learn the true skills of evaluating and using a resource wisely instead of just looking for the affiliation of the authors to judge the validity of information.
For information that would be considered "Gray" how would you go about citing it? Would you consider it common knowledge, or easily accessible and open to the public? Should information categorized as "Gray" just be avoided?
Vincent, thanks for your question. I have to admit that there was one additional step that I didn't think was necessary: Restarting Zotero. On my mac, when I double-click one of the CSL files that I download from the Zotero Style Repository, it automatically opens in Zotero and I am prompted whether or not I want to have it Installed. Depending on the speed of my computer, it can take a minute for Zotero to prompt for Installing (I just tried installing a new style and I clicked on the style I wanted, it downloaded in my browser, and when I clicked on the file to Open it, it took about 30 seconds for Zotero Standalone to acknowledge that it was clicked. Installation was completed after I pressed "Install" in the Zotero window.) I know that the Style was installed because it was listed under the possible Styles in the "Cite" menu in Preferences. However, it did not show up in the "Default Styles" as you said. When I restarted Zotero Standalone, it appeared in the drop-down for Default Styles. There is some more information here: <a href="https://www.zotero.org/support/styles">https://www.zotero.org/support/styles</a> but I hope that a restart helps you out like it did for me! If you are using a PC, you may have to choose to open the CSL file "Open with..." Zotero.
Forty seconds into the video "Demo Changing Styles in Zotero for Drag and Drop into Word" you show ACS Style as an option in the "default output format", but I do not see that as an option, and after Googling for 15 minutes, still do not see how to add it. How do you add citation styles to the "default output format" of the standalone application? I went to the styles repository, <a href="https://www.zotero.org/styles">https://www.zotero.org/styles</a> , clicked on ACS styles and it said it installed it, but I do not see it.
Thank you,
Vincent
Libreoffice
Re: Versions of Word Document
Good question!
Zotero has a Word Plugin that creates and manages Microsoft Word "Fields" - like the fields that Microsoft Word has that manage automatic page numbering and automatic Table/Figure numbering. Thus, any sort of versioning that is native for Word will still be possible (which is quite limited in my experience). Zotero itself does not keep any records of any documents that you write in Word. It creates these Fields that reference the Bibliography information which is stored in the Word Document, itself. Thus, it will work even if you send it to someone who does not have Zotero installed. The importance of using the Zotero Groups is that if someone wants to add or edit existing citations, they need to have access to the same pool of documents that the other authors are using: hence the use of collaborative group libraries.
I hope that answers the question - although I know it is not the context in which you were hoping Zotero functioned!
Justin
Saving and syncing multiple versions of a word document
Subscription based data-bases
"Gray" is evolving
Hi Andrey,
Thanks for bringing up the interesting questions. Here are some of my thoughts on this topic. I agree that the category "Gray" is as confusing as a category named Miscellaneous. With the new and emerging means of communication and "self-publishing", the Gray literature fields are even "grayer" than ever. Many of these new forms containing information very valuable and, more importantly, convenient to access for various audiences. We may be able to categorize some of them to the primary/secondary/tertiary literature (e.g. a technical report could be primary or tertiary resource) but we won't be able to do it with many of them. For example, a website like this one is easily accessible and contains somewhat trustworthy data and information. However, it's original purpose was to test cheminformatics technology not to disseminate the information on green solvent and the attempt to articulate the provenance of the information is incomplete. So, I am not quite sure if I'd categorize it as a scholarly resource but I would also hesitate to tell students that they cannot use it at all since the information itself is helpful. In this case, the key is to let student recognize the major components missing here ( i.e. how these rankings of green solvent were determined and by who) and also recognize the needs to seek for additional resources beyond this one.
Going back to your original questions, we define the "Gray" literature as those ones "not formalized by the community". They can be easily accessible and open to the public as the example mentioned above but can also be very locked down like an expensive trade report. Although we can't define them strictly as common knowledge or scholarly resources, we cannot simply deny their usefulness and certainly cannot keep people from using them. What we can do is to help people evaluate these resources case by case and use them wisely. The community may reach a consensus on how a certain type of sources can be categorized when it's used more broadly but there will always be new types emerging for the community to figure out.
In terms of citing them, it's, again, case by case. Some existing styles like ACS Styles started to include some rules for them, such as citing some of them as a "Webpage". It's not ideal but at least it ensures people include the URL and access dates to meet the traceable requirements of citing. Citing new forms of information like Wikipedia pages as a web page may meet the traceable requirement but may not meet giving credit and lending validity requirements due to the vagueness of authorship in the first place. But the bottom line is that if people are using these resources in a deliberated and reasonable way, they should not avoid citing them. We and the research community will work together bit-by-bit to find better ways of citing and credit attribution while using them.
In all, "Gray" may not be the best container label but we always need a container for emerging resources. I often times get excited when students discuss these resource with me since that's when they would learn the true skills of evaluating and using a resource wisely instead of just looking for the affiliation of the authors to judge the validity of information.
Clarification on Gray
Re: Adding Styles
Adding styles to default output format in standalone application
you should get this
Bob has unsubscribed from this, but OLCCSTU is still subscribed.