![readcube papers export reference list readcube papers export reference list](https://www.rdgao.com/assets/images/blog/2018-09-20-refman-f1-4.png)
The search volume for Connotea is also constantly decreasing since its launch in 2005. It seems that around 2005, Biblioscape was quite popular but nowadays it’s hardly searched for any more.
![readcube papers export reference list readcube papers export reference list](https://www.papersapp.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/Screen-Shot-2021-07-08-at-11.49.43-AM-1024x666.png)
![readcube papers export reference list readcube papers export reference list](https://www.papersapp.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/Screen-Shot-2021-07-08-at-11.47.17-AM-1536x1200.png)
However, for Colwiz the search volume remains constant over the years while for Bibsonomy it is decreasing. Bibsonomy and Colwiz have a comparable search volume (about half of Docear or CiteULike).
![readcube papers export reference list readcube papers export reference list](https://s3.amazonaws.com/cdn.freshdesk.com/data/helpdesk/attachments/production/30028296464/original/TNqRyfbRcyWZ4mveEf98Wx-0_qeQsSYCdg.png)
While CiteULike once was far more popular than Docear, search volume for CiteULike and Docear is nowadays about the same. The above picture shows even clearer how the interest in CiteULike decreases. In addition, you should ignore the very last bit of the chart – the search volume for Qiqqa certainly did not drop to zero, but Google Trends usually provides unreliable data for the current month. This chart shows data only from 2007 on because Google Trends simply did not export the other data (a bug?). In contrast, JabRef, Referencer, and CiteULike quite significantly lost popularity. The search volume for Citavi slowly, but constantly, increased over the past years. A little bit surprising is the high variation in the search volume for Noodletools and also RefWorks. All other top-ranked tools rather gain popularity, although it seems that Zotero and Mendeley are “saturated”, according to search volume (of course, when the search volume remains constantly high, the tools still gain a remarkable number of new users every month). The search volume for Endnote continuously decreases. They illustrate the fall and rise of some reference managers. The following pictures are all retrieved from Google Trends. The above picture shows all three rankings in a single chart for an overall overview. I think that’s not bad given the rather small development team of Docear, and considering how young Docear is :-). According to all three ranking methods, Docear ranks #9 or even #8. Also popular are NoodleTools, RefWorks, and CiteULike. What makes me personally quite happy is the good ranking of Docear :-). On average, Zotero is the most popular reference manager, followed by EndNote and Mendeley (I just calculated the mean of the previous three rankings). on Sourceforge, and Alexa only returns traffic statistics for the main domain, i.e. The reason is that these tools don’t have their own domain but are hosted e.g. have a ranking of 0 because Alexa did not provide any (reliable) data for them. RefBase, RefWorks, JabRef, Referencer, etc. Bibsonomy, although the search volume is rather low. It’s also interesting to note that EndNote ranks only #7 while it ranked quite high according to search volume. However, I find these numbers still surprising because they are so massively high for e.g. Plausibly, traffic statistics of the web-based tools are higher.
#Readcube papers export reference list software
Docear usually visit to download the software or get some support. Bibsonomy visit each time they use the tool. Of course, these reference managers are all web-based. Bibsonomy and CiteULike rank first and second respectively, and the (discontinued) Connotea also ranks quite high (#5). When using Google Keyword Planner, NoodleTools even has the highest search volume, followed by Endnote, Zotero, and Mendeley (don’t ask why Google Trends and Keyword Planner report different search volumes – I don’t know).Īlexa measures the number of visitors a website has and shows a different picture of the reference managers’ popularity than Google’s search volume. Mendeley or Zotero but hardly anyone ever used NoodleTools before. Also Docear’s users typically use(d) e.g. when looking for reference managers, NoodleTools seems to be widely ignored by most reviews. While you permanently stumble upon Zotero, Endnote etc. To be honest, I wasn’t really aware of NoodleTools. What is quite interesting is the high search volume for “NoodleTools”. It should be kept in mind that the true popularity of “Endnote” probably is a little bit lower, because some people searching for “Endote” might not be interested in the reference manager but in some information about endnotes in general. they accumulate the highest search volume. Endnote, Zotero, and Mendeley are the most popular tools, i.e. Google Trends shows a picture most people would probably expect. were not included because their product names are so generic. Docear, CiteULike, and Qiqqa had the same search volume, hence they are all ranked #9. The tool with the second highest search volume was ranked #2, etc. Data was exported from Google Trends, normalized, and that tool with the highest search volume since January 2012 was ranked #1.