Free Success Story-papers 3 For Mac
Papers revolutionizes the way you deal with your research documents. It allows you to search for them, download and organize them together with supplementary material, allows you to read them full screen, highlight and keep notes, sync them to your iPad or iPhone, cite them in your favorite word processor, share them with your colleagues,. The success of their products has allowed Apple to dominate the market against their competitors. For instance, “Apple’s revenues grew 66% in FY2011 and the company grew at a CAGR of 59% during FY2009–11” (Apple Inc., pg. Learn the steps in installing the Worry-free Business Security (WFBS) Agent for Mac.
Share this story. As Ars' Infinite Loop readers know, we for six categories of notable Mac OS X software this week. The winner of our Best Mac OS X App for Education category was by Mekentosj, and we sat down with (most of) the Papers team for a quick chat about their future on the Mac and where the mobile space is going. For those who aren't familiar with it, Papers is largely targeted at the scientific and education community (read our for more details, as well as ).
Our own science writers here at Ars are big fans of Papers, as are a number of their peers in the scientific community. Mekentosj's Mark Bate and Charles Parnot—and Alex Griekspoor in spirit—told Ars that they plan to continue focusing on the Mac for as long as their target audience remains there, which they expect to be for quite a while. 'The Mac side of Papers is still going strong,' the team said.
'Apple wants to focus on iOS, but there will still be space for the Mac. Our audience is scientists—it's a more professional kind of user who will likely use computers for a lot longer than the average consumer.' Parnot and Bate did say that the reason Alex didn't come to WWDC with the rest of the team was because of Apple's heavy focus on the iOS, but that the company believes the Mac and mobile space will come back together at some point. 'There will be a middle ground between the Mac and iOS,' said Parnot. And, after all, despite the team's commitment to continuing development on Mac OS X, they're not doing too shabby on iOS. Not only does Mekentosj offer an iPhone version of Papers, there's also a popular version available for iPad.
'The iPhone app was pretty successful,' Parnot told Ars, 'but the iPad app is huge. It's definitely more popular, as the iPad is a much better fit for reading scientific papers.' The team didn't want to make any serious announcements today, but did indicate that Papers 2 for the Mac is coming along well and would be available 'soon.' We always used LaTeX. Fantastic stuff. Completely divorce the two concepts of content and layout so you can concentrate on your content and not waste time fighting with your 'WYSIWYG' editor.
You know, getting embedded lists to work right, getting indentation right, screwing with section/subsection numbering, etc. Then use the appropriate layout definition for whatever you're going to publish to, run a make, and you're most likely done. Just proofread it just in case something didn't turn out just the way you want it, make any edits, remake, and done. Every time I ever tried to write a paper using a WYSIWYG editor of any kind, I ended up spending more time fighting with the thing trying to get it to do what I wanted it to do than actually putting the content in the paper itself. We always used LaTeX. Fantastic stuff. Completely divorce the two concepts of content and layout so you can concentrate on your content and not waste time fighting with your 'WYSIWYG' editor.
You know, getting embedded lists to work right, getting indentation right, screwing with section/subsection numbering, etc. Then use the appropriate layout definition for whatever you're going to publish to, run a make, and you're most likely done. Just proofread it just in case something didn't turn out just the way you want it, make any edits, remake, and done. Every time I ever tried to write a paper using a WYSIWYG editor of any kind, I ended up spending more time fighting with the thing trying to get it to do what I wanted it to do than actually putting the content in the paper itself. Are you thinking of Pages? I've looking for something to organise all my PDF.
I've been using Papers for a few days now and it's great for organising and labelling journal articles. But a lot of my PDFs are book chapters and there is no proper way to fill in metadata for Publisher, Place of publication and chapter number. I still think it needs a bit of work on the user interface as well. Try mendeley, its easy to change metadata, and it has different types of documents. It also will sync the files between computers, organize the files in a directory structure and create bibtex files (and I would imagine other bibliography generation files).
As alluded to by crmarvin42, the utter lack of significant new features over the past few years is a disgrace, especially since many users have taken a lot of time to give feedback in their forums, and have contributed many ideas. They're clearly milking the cow for as long as they can without doing significant extra work. Even worse, they silently delete posts on their forum that complain about the lack of updates. Ars's award comes a few years too late, and unfortunately is only to encourage those guys to rest on their laurels and rake in money. We always used LaTeX. Fantastic stuff. Completely divorce the two concepts of content and layout so you can concentrate on your content and not waste time fighting with your 'WYSIWYG' editor.
You know, getting embedded lists to work right, getting indentation right, screwing with section/subsection numbering, etc. Then use the appropriate layout definition for whatever you're going to publish to, run a make, and you're most likely done.
Just proofread it just in case something didn't turn out just the way you want it, make any edits, remake, and done. Every time I ever tried to write a paper using a WYSIWYG editor of any kind, I ended up spending more time fighting with the thing trying to get it to do what I wanted it to do than actually putting the content in the paper itself. Are you thinking of Pages? Ah, I misunderstood the question. We always used LaTeX. Fantastic stuff.
Completely divorce the two concepts of content and layout so you can concentrate on your content and not waste time fighting with your 'WYSIWYG' editor. You know, getting embedded lists to work right, getting indentation right, screwing with section/subsection numbering, etc. Then use the appropriate layout definition for whatever you're going to publish to, run a make, and you're most likely done. Just proofread it just in case something didn't turn out just the way you want it, make any edits, remake, and done. Every time I ever tried to write a paper using a WYSIWYG editor of any kind, I ended up spending more time fighting with the thing trying to get it to do what I wanted it to do than actually putting the content in the paper itself.
I think you missed the boat here. Papers is an applications that stores PDFs for further reference. I think Charles and Alex are more painfully aware than most that pdf handling in both OSX and 'iOS' (I'll stay in the camp that prefers the names 'iPhone OS' and 'Rendezvous') needs a lot more attention from Apple. Papers has yet to satisfactorily implement highlighting, bookmarks, and annotations in part because they are not well supported by OSX. IPhone OS is even worse in this regard: currently none of the 4 or 5 pdf reader apps seem to handle pdf rendering the same way, and the lack of file system makes swapping pdfs between them a fantastic pain in the butt.
Even worse, trying to use academic databases on the iPad is tough because Safari on iPad doesn't give you the option of opening the downloaded pdf in another app. Hopefully Safari in iOS 4 will understand how to save pdf files to iBooks, at least, but it would be really nice if apps like Papers could hook into ipad-Safari's file management system. In my experience very few hard scientists use Macs, just social 'scientists' seeking cool factor. Must depend on the scientists.
Most of my contemporaries are biologists, zoologists (not including me anymore - I'm now in a field even remotely connected to my degree), molecular biochemists, microbiologists and various others in related fields. Of them, about 60-70% use Macs. This is a substantial increase on years ago. This observation, is, of course, anecdotal, and not scientific at all. As a matter of interest - does your pejorative extend to the fields I have listed?
So how does Papers compare to BibDesk (assuming you're a LaTeX user and so only need BibTex support)? I use BibDesk, not Papers. From reading the ars review linked above, it seems that Papers has these advantages: - It integrates nicely with PubMed? (Which isn't an advantage for those not in Med.) - It parses PDFs for author/title information.
It recognises duplicates. Are there any I've missed? FWIW, I find myself pretty happy with BibDesk. Some interaction with Google Scholar and CiteSeer would be nice. Does anyone know of any open source software to parse out the author/title information from a PDF? I think we've thoroughly established that vaguba doesn't know what he's talking about. In recent years, macs have become very popular in the hard sciences.
Our (physics) lab is about 25% mac at this point, and would probably be higher if we had some reason to upgrade. Grad students tend to use a lot of Ubuntu, which is kind of odd since at my last school macs were the dominant platform. I suspect it's because of the free updates and the fact that most of us spend our days staring at a terminal or running really old X11 apps. So how does Papers compare to BibDesk (assuming you're a LaTeX user and so only need BibTex support)?
I use BibDesk, not Papers. From reading the ars review linked above, it seems that Papers has these advantages: - It integrates nicely with PubMed? (Which isn't an advantage for those not in Med.) - It parses PDFs for author/title information.
It recognises duplicates. Are there any I've missed?
FWIW, I find myself pretty happy with BibDesk. Some interaction with Google Scholar and CiteSeer would be nice. Does anyone know of any open source software to parse out the author/title information from a PDF? Paper is not a bibliography maker, papers is used to access and find the information within individual articles.
The point is that it stores all your pdfs in a systematic way, indexes the content of the pdfs, and creates metadata that contains the bibliographic information. If I know the content of a paper, but cannot remember the author or any other information, I can find it in (usually) one search using one key phrase. If I know.an. author but nothing else I can find the paper in one search. I can read the paper in the app, make notes.
What I find very useful is that as I write a paper or grant application, I create a collection (like a playlist) that contains the papers I have read and will want to refer it. It is then very quick to ensure that I have the right references for the right parts of the papers. I can then very quickly export the collection to a bibtex file (or endnote, or Bookends or etc) and do the bibliography. I guess the reason I like it is that it fills what was a large gap in my work flow: getting, retaining and accessing information. Now, for what its worth, I think the Papers interface to online databases is better than the web interface, but it is also more limited in some cases, so, sometimes, I still need to use a web browser to get information. But my problems with effective filing and retrieving information are gone.
I can always find the paper I am looking for. And that is worth gold. Almost nobody uses macs in the neurobiology at least, and zotero seems to be the choice instead of papers. This is party because the software etc you want to use patch clamping and so is not available for macs and very few labs actually want to do their own software in labview or analyse the data via matlab after they use axon.
Free Success Story-papers 3 For Macbook Pro
What I mean is that since 'science' or 'research science' is a huge field employing millions of people it's very very narrow-minded to say you don't want to develop your software for windows (or linux) since everybody is using macs. They would likely increase their market cap 100-fold overnight if they made papers on windows too. Last edited by on Wed Jun 09, 2010 3:29 am. I'm currently a Mendeley user, but I'm very tempted to buy Papers, as it seems like it is much closer to what I want (basically an iTunes for PDF files, especially research papers). However, if Papers 2 is coming Real Soon Now™, perhaps it would be better to wait?
I didn't see any word on upgrade pricing or deals for recent purchasers.:-/ Mendeley seems to be coming along well, and I like the convenience of having an online back-up of all of my references (I also like how it can link with CiteULike, which, once you get it up and going has a decent recommendation function). I just wish it were a bit more Mac like.
Papers seems amazing but it's also surprisingly limited. As someone pointed out, it's not a bibliography manager (which seems like an obvious next step), it's only a pdf manager.
It's also not a pdf viewer. Or at least not a very good one since you can't take notes on it. I'm not programmer and I certainly don't know the intricacies involved in producing a bibliography manager, but it always astounds me that in 2010 the most popular program is the horrible, expensive eye-sore EndNote. Isn't a reference manager just a fancy database? Can't someone slap a decent UI on that, link it to the related PDF file, and make it all searchable? I don't mean to be dismissive of Papers.
I mean, it's apparently difficult to do what I said since some very smart motivated people are working on it. But the idea of using papers for this, endnote or bookends for that, seems like an unnecessary chore. Here's to hoping for better things to come with Papers 2 'soon'. Papers seems amazing but it's also surprisingly limited. As someone pointed out, it's not a bibliography manager (which seems like an obvious next step), it's only a pdf manager. It's also not a pdf viewer. Or at least not a very good one since you can't take notes on it.
I don't really see this as being an issue, since Papers and Bookends work very well together. As a PDF manager, Papers excels. (Agree with you completely about Endnote - it's an abomination). Or you can do what I (and I expect many others) do and print the articles out and scribble over them to your hearts content. I work on massively parallel scientific simulation capabilities at a big government lab.
And over the last two years my entire department has switched from Linux workstations with windows laptops to Mac Pro workstations with Macbook Pro laptops. What caused the switch? A combo of things, but Papers has actually played a large role! We read and write TONS of scientific papers all day long. And Papers has completely modified the way we work. It makes the finding cataloguing and reading of papers an absolute breeze. Every time I show one of my fellow scientists Papers, they immediately remark that their next computer will be a Mac!
We're definitely looking forward to Papers 2. Thanks for all the awesome work Mekentosj! Oh and on the bibliography thing: anyone that is serious about scientific writing will be using Latex and Bibtex. Don't even talk about Endnote. Papers can export a bibtex file which is good if you don't already have your own bibtex database. But again, anyone that is serious about journal submitted scientific writing will already have a large bibtex database that they've put together over the years. My department actually keeps all of our papers in Latex form along with a huge bibtex database in SVN.
Everyone contributes to the database and collaborative writing is a breeze with SVN. If you're not using latex you're doing it wrong! Have used Papers since about day one and it is great at what it does (only missing annotation features) I annotate in Acrobat Pro and read them in Papers (with Papers on the iPad have stopped printing pdfs; bought the iPad for this) EndNote remains awful but there is no real substitute, no other reasonable way of getting references into Word; collect the articles for a paper/grant in Papers and export via xml into EndNote ps. I am a scientist and know lots of other scientists and Macs have been the favorite since way, way back. At meetings/study sections it is typically 3+:1 for the laptops with a smattering of.unix depending on how many physicists are there. And have a point about the slow pace of developments. There have been lots of small updates since I started using Papers in 2006 or 7, but also lots of hints of the big requested features “real soon now”, that have been kind of maddening.
It gives a weird sense of “Can’t live with it, can’t live without it”, since some of the missing bits kind of drive me crazy (no Find in Full-screen view? Ack!), but I can’t think of a better way to quickly find papers and keep them organized. The forum participation is also weird and frustrating. Sometimes Alex Griekspoor is really active and helpful, sometimes MIA or dismissive. But the notion that they plan to “rest on their laurels and rake in money” is pretty absured.
If they were going to do that, they wouldn’t have hired so many people in the last year or 2. I think Charles and Alex are more painfully aware than most that pdf handling in both OSX and 'iOS' (I'll stay in the camp that prefers the names 'iPhone OS' and 'Rendezvous') needs a lot more attention from Apple. Papers has yet to satisfactorily implement highlighting, bookmarks, and annotations in part because they are not well supported by OSX.
I don’t know if I think this is much of an excuse. I realize there must be huge upsides to relying on the OS’s built-in PDF renderer, but given the role of the program, they would probably do well to roll their own. That is, flexible annotations and highlighting have probably been the foremost request from paying customers, and if they can’t rely on PDFKit to provide them, they should be working on other ways. Clearly it’s been been done on the desktop (by Skim, although I don’t think their annotations conform to the PDF spec) and iPad (by iAnnotate, which as far as I know is the only way to search PDF contents on iOS). The company was started by scientists who took up Cocoa programming, so PDF parsing/rendering was probably lower-level stuff than they were originally good at. Hopefully either Alex has picked up the skills or one of the new folks is on top of it.
Of course there are lots of other big changes they could make, and I have a feeling another priority is syncing Papers libraries between Macs, and maybe providing (I’m sorry, I have to use the word) cloud services to enable it. I hope this impression is correct, but like many others, I’d also like to see huge advances in reference management, either by seamless interoperability with EndNote (which I hate, but is useful when collaborating), direct communication with Pages/Word, or a whole nother app that deals with it while reading Papers’ library. Also, they need to get a manual, a full time support person, and full AppleScript support.
Um, I guess I’m done here. Last edited by on Wed Jun 09, 2010 9:11 am. EndNote remains awful but there is no real substitute, no other reasonable way of getting references into Word; collect the articles for a paper/grant in Papers and export via xml into EndNote Actually, this isn’t entirely true.
If you’re using Word 2008, you can export from Papers into Word’s built-in reference manager. It’s not totally seamless, but still a good bit less work than fussing with EndNote.
And it’s actually more easily shareable with other Word 2007/2008 users, though the citations are a teeny bit less flexible: that is, if you want to add “See also” or similar text within the citation’s parentheses, you have to convert it to static text first, which means you have to just save all those little notes for last. I think Charles and Alex are more painfully aware than most that pdf handling in both OSX and 'iOS' (I'll stay in the camp that prefers the names 'iPhone OS' and 'Rendezvous') needs a lot more attention from Apple. Papers has yet to satisfactorily implement highlighting, bookmarks, and annotations in part because they are not well supported by OSX. IPhone OS is even worse in this regard: currently none of the 4 or 5 pdf reader apps seem to handle pdf rendering the same way, and the lack of file system makes swapping pdfs between them a fantastic pain in the butt. Even worse, trying to use academic databases on the iPad is tough because Safari on iPad doesn't give you the option of opening the downloaded pdf in another app. Hopefully Safari in iOS 4 will understand how to save pdf files to iBooks, at least, but it would be really nice if apps like Papers could hook into ipad-Safari's file management system. Preview in 10.6 had improved annotation support.
I'm guessing that doesn't just transfer into Papers? Does 10.6 lay a sufficient framework or is there still work to be done?
Free Success Story-papers 3 For Mac Torrent
I agree though that the whole pdf support (or dealing with files in general) is currently a pain on iOS.