I just wondered which email provider students and scientists prefer. To find out I wrote a little script which analyzed the domain names of SciPlore MindMapping`s newsletter subscribers (there are 1375 of them). And, the answer is: Gmail (Google Mail) is the most preferred email provider. 42% of all subscribers Read more…
Over a year ago we started the development of SciPlore MindMapping. So far the response in the academic community was overwhelming. We get almost daily emails from users telling us how much they like the software and download counts are steadily increasing. Now, I am very pleased to announce that in the near future we will continue the development of SciPlore MindMapping as an independent tool from SciPlore. The focus of “SciPlore MindMapping” differs just too much from the goal of “SciPlore” and despite, the name “SciPlore MindMapping” is just too long anyway.
So, what we do need is a new name for SciPlore MindMapping and we want you help finding it!
There are few (but tricky) demands to the new name: (more…)
When we started the development of SciPlore MindMapping about a year ago we decided to use FreeMind as code base. That means we used FreeMind`s source code, modified it slightly, and added some new features. It was a straight forward decision: for many years, FreeMind was bascially the standard choice if you wanted a free open source mind mapping software and it was written in Java, our preferred programing language. However, time is changing and FreeMind unfortunately is not. Since a long time, the FreeMind team is releasing new versions very slowly, not to say the development of FreeMind almost pauses.
Beta 14 of SciPlore MindMapping is out: Import comments & highlighted text; more BibTeX attributes, Export works now, …
We added some new features to SciPlore MindMapping Beta 14 that should help you a lot in managing your academic literature: Many users told us they would like not only to import bookmarks but comments and highlighted text from PDFs to their mind maps. Well, this is now possible :-). Read more…
Beta 12 has many new features and improvements
- New: Incoming PDFs are now displayed in seperate window
- New: ‘Import All’ and ‘Import New’ Bookmarks
- Improved: Update of the monitoring node is now MUCH, MUCH faster
- Improved: Better understandable error messages when the web service is not available (for mind map backup, user validation etc.)
- Improved: Logging events are sent up to three times if connection breaks
- Improved: Better exception handling if no internet connection exists
- Improved: Icons are now in higher resolution (more…)
Are you using Google Scholar? For finding scientific literature? For obtaining citation counts and publication lists of researchers? Have you ever thought about how trustworthy the information is you get on Google Scholar? My colleague and I performed several tests with Google Scholar and found out that it is really Read more…
Today we released Beta 11 of SciPlore MindMapping. There is a number
of new features, namely:
- New: Copy several BibTeX keys from different nodes at once
- New: Open the folder that contains the software’s log files via the menu
- New: Keyboard shortcuts for the most important functions
- New: Backup reminder (user is asked to activate backup after 10th software start)
- New: Information retrieval reminder
- New: Usage statistics implemented
- New: More options for PDF monitoring (update automatically on opening a mind map and read (no) sub directories)
- Improved: PDF Bookmarks (more…)
Most users of SciPlore MindMapping (including me) use JabRef to manage their references. However, I always was thinking about switching to Mendeley because they offer automatic extraction of metadata from PDFs which saves lots of time when creating your bibliography. But Mendeley is not that compatible with SciPlore MindMapping and Read more…
Today we released Beta 10 of SciPlore MindMapping. There are no new features but SciPlore MindMapping should run now smoothly with Linux and MacOS. I guess, there will be still some problems but you certainly will tell us if that’s the case (at least I hope so) 🙂 Download Beta Read more…
I am currently in Toronto presenting our new paper titled “On the Robustness of Google Scholar against Spam” at Hypertext 2010. The paper is about some experiments we did on Google Scholar to find out how reliable their citation data etc. is. The paper soon will be downloadable on our publication page but for now i will post a pre-print version of that paper here in the blog:
In this research-in-progress paper we present the current results of several experiments in which we analyzed whether spamming Google Scholar is possible. Our results show, it is possible: We ‘improved’ the ranking of articles by manipulating their citation counts and we made articles appear in searchers for keywords the articles did not originally contained by placing invisible text in modified versions of the article.
Researchers should have an interest in having their articles indexed by Google Scholar and other academic search engines such as CiteSeer(X). The inclusion of their articles in the index improves the ability to make their articles available to the academic community. In addition, authors should not only be concerned about the fact that their articles are indexed, but also where they are displayed in the result list. As with all ranked search results, articles displayed in top positions are more likely to be read.
In recent studies we researched the ranking algorithm of Google Scholar [/fusion_builder_column][fusion_builder_column type=”1_1″ background_position=”left top” background_color=”” border_size=”” border_color=”” border_style=”solid” spacing=”yes” background_image=”” background_repeat=”no-repeat” padding=”” margin_top=”0px” margin_bottom=”0px” class=”” id=”” animation_type=”” animation_speed=”0.3″ animation_direction=”left” hide_on_mobile=”no” center_content=”no” min_height=”none”][1-3] and gave advice to researchers on how to optimize their scholarly literature for Google Scholar . However, there are provisos in the academic community against what we called “Academic Search Engine Optimization” . There is the concern that some researchers might use the knowledge about ranking algorithms to ‘over optimize’ their papers in order to push their articles’ rankings in non-legitimate ways.
We conducted some experiments to find out how robust Google Scholar is against spamming. The experiments are not all completed yet but those that are completed show interesting results which are presented in this paper. (more…)