Skip to content

RefWorks

← Have an idea for Ex Libris?

Your feedback matters to us. Help us improve RefWorks by telling us what you’d like to see using the message areas below. You can also can support something already posted.

We would love to be able to respond to every idea that is submitted, but this is not feasible. We are, however, committed to responding to the most popular ideas—those that have received the most points.

For more information please review our FAQ and guidelines.
For Support related issues please use this form.
Thank you.

How can we improve RefWorks?

You've used all your votes and won't be able to post a new idea, but you can still search and comment on existing ideas.

There are two ways to get more votes:

  • When an admin closes an idea you've voted on, you'll get your votes back from that idea.
  • You can remove your votes from an open idea you support.
  • To see ideas you have already voted on, select the "My feedback" filter and select "My open ideas".
(thinking…)

Enter your idea and we'll search to see if someone has already suggested it.

If a similar idea already exists, you can support and comment on it.

If it doesn't exist, you can post your idea so others can support it.

Enter your idea and we'll search to see if someone has already suggested it.

  • Hot ideas
  • Top ideas
  • New ideas
  • My feedback

3 results found

  1. Search Option in Reference Citation Manager

    I would like to bring to your attention about a critical issue regarding the search function in Reference Citation Manager (RCM). We have encountered a problem that it is unable to retrieve relevant article records when searching for separate keywords of a title in RCM.

    It was also discovered that RCM does not provide an “Advanced” search function, compared with RefWorks interface. Considering our testing and comparison with the RefWorks interface, it is apparent that RCM lacks the necessary functionality to support advanced searching. Users are unable to retrieve relevant records unless they specifically type joint words, which is impractical…

    1 vote
    Vote

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback
    Signed in as (Sign out)
    Close
    Close
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    Planned  ·  0 comments  ·  Search and Deduplication  ·  Admin →

  2. Search Option in RefWorks

    We checked with the RefWorks Support Centre regarding the basic search option settings. The search always prioritizes the joint word over the two separate keywords. To search for the two separate keywords from the title, we need to use the "Advanced Search" option as it provides better refinement of results. Searching for two separate words may not locate such record. However, from the users' perspective, we will simply select some major keywords instead of typing the joint words together every time. Additionally, we will not interpret "Advanced Search" as a search for separate words. Therefore, we believe that there is…

    1 vote
    Vote

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback
    Signed in as (Sign out)
    Close
    Close
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    Planned  ·  0 comments  ·  Search and Deduplication  ·  Admin →

  3. Optionally avoid deduplication when a criterion is void

    While deduplicating it can happen that RefWorks suggests large numbers of candidate duplicates because one of the chosen criteria is void, e.g. I choose "title/ISSN/page number" and RefWorks suggests a large number of totally unrelated records just because they all lack the page number - this is taken by the algorithm as "match succeeded". Since this behavior could be sometimes useful, there should be an option "also match void criteria" to choose when it is deemed useful by the user.

    9 votes
    Vote

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback
    Signed in as (Sign out)
    Close
    Close
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    Planned  ·  0 comments  ·  Search and Deduplication  ·  Admin →
  • Don't see your idea?

RefWorks

Categories

Feedback and Knowledge Base

(thinking…)