First off, great work with all the updates. V2 has been
improving with breathtaking speed. Now, to the issue—the book
chapter misgridding issue, where double-clicking icons in the
nested chapter view opens the wrong PDF—is still occurring in
v2.0.4. I realized I may not have described it well previously, so
I've attached a screen-capture video in which I explain the
Apologies if my voice sounds stern—I promise I'm not
upset, and in fact thrilled at how responsive you folks have been.
Just my morning voice apparently, which I'm not used to hearing
recorded. To coffee!
Support Staff63 Posted by charles on 08 Apr, 2011 10:20 PM
Josh: awesome bug report, and your voice sounds great and
certainly not upset, so no worry. We think we have this one nailed
now, to be included in the next release (1-2 weeks of waiting
time). Thanks very very much!
I'm not having any luck using books. I see no way of reliably
associating book chapters with their books. If I drag a chapter
into the chapter area, nothing happens.
If I click the plus button, a new chapter is created, but I
can't associate it with any existing document.
If I highlight the new bogus chapter created with the plus
button and click the minus button, Papers2 deletes another random
chapter from the book -- not the highlighted chapter, some other
chapter from the book, seemingly at random.
It complete deletes the chapter -- not even moving it to the
trash. The chapters are now completely gone.
Hello, I have referenced a book in a word doc, and in the
references this is what I get:
Givoni, M., & Rietveld, P. (2008). Chapter 14: Rail
infrastructure at major European hub airports: the role of
institutional settings, in: H. Priemus, B. Flyvbjerg, & B. van
Wee (Tran.), Decision-making on mega-projects, p. 281-303.
Cheltenham, UK - Northampton, MA, USA: Edward Elgar.
You'll note the (Tran.): should it not be (Eds.)?
I am using the Urban Studies style. Looking at a 2011 Urban
Studies paper, this is how a book is referenced: Sabourin, J.
(1994) The process of gentrification: lessons from an inner-city
neighbourhood, in: F. Frisken (Ed.) The Changing Canadian
Metropolis: A Public Policy Perspective, Vol. 1, pp. 259–292.
Berkeley, CA: Institute of Governmental Studies Press, University
of California and Toronto: Canadian Urban Institute.
(I have lost all the italics, but they look fine
When citing the chapter, wouldn't you expect the published date
for the chapter to be >cited? Or is the problem that you can't
remove the 1852 date from the chapter? >(because, come to think
of it, it should be the same year for both no matter what).
Not entirely. In harvard style referencing style I need to see
BOTH dates - both the original date from the chapter-text and the
date from the edited book.
Thus, My ideal ciatation should look like this:
Marx, K., 1852. The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte. In
R. Collins (ed), Four Sociological Traditions, 1994. Oxford: Oxford
University Press, p. 29-30.
(see post 39 for details)
As it is now, if I wanted to look up the reference, I would be
missing the name of the editor(s) and the year of publishing for
this specific edition (1994).
I'll wait to see if the bug reported by Josh is sorted in the
In the meantime, what is the final position on having metadata
from the book (publisher, author by default with the possibility to
manually overwrite if an edited book or any other solution to the
edited book, etc, date of publication, etc) automatically imported
to all its chapters too?
And what about the fact that an edited book does not consider
editors automatically as authors? Is the author field not redundant
in the case of an edited book? considering that you need to add
each individual author manually (with the p2 authors pop up) should
we not be able to select if a book is authored or edited and then
if edited the authors field is overridden by the editors one? (I
also mentioned this to be the case for websites, e.g. newspapers,
where you normally have the newspaper as the author in a reference,
not the journalist).
I'd just like to add a "me too" to Ella's query about chapters
inheriting book attributes. I can't quite understand what the
benefit of chapters might be if they don't.
PS: I would also like to see a more open discussion board please -
I realise you guys feel a little burned but there must be a happy
medium between open slander and complete silence.
PPS: and yes I meant to say "open slander" there.
In Papers 2.0.6, when I match a the edited volumes (a volume
title with different chapters by many authors - single PDF), puts
the Editors as Autors. If I manually change the names into a
"Editors" field, my library appears as "Unknow" autor.
1.- Is any form to set the option for Eds, in autor field?
2.- Exist the posibility to add a "new chapter" and cite this, but
you need to have manys PDF (one for each chapter to cite). In the
case, when you have a edited volume (in a single PDF), How can I do
for cite a specific chapter (with his own chapter autors) without
have to divide the pdf file (for each chapter) and still organized
into the book?
Support Staff75 Posted by charles on 27 May, 2011 08:32 PM
@slinglex: I am sorry I am not sure I understand what you mean
with your question/report about editors and authors.
Regarding PDFs that have multiple chapters in it, I am not sure
there is much Papers can do, if we agree that the model is one
entry per citation. Note that you can create an entry without a PDF
for this chapter, and make that part of the book, with the book
being the holder of the PDF. SO you have:
The editors/authors thing is about the fact that if a book has
editors, but not authors, the author field shows "Unknown" in the
listing. Which is accurate, strictly speaking, but it looks quite
weird to have a listing with some books showing authors and some
books showing "Unknown". So perhaps an option where the Authors
column will show editors if there are no authors for that item -
perhaps show editors in italics or with (ed) afterward.
I just imported a PDF of a whole book, an edited collection of
chapters by different authors, and entered its bibliographic
information as a book, including the editors' names, which was very
exciting. However, now I'm trying to figure out how to also enter
bibliographic information for the individual chapters but I can't
find any way to do that. What should I do?
Support Staff79 Posted by charles on 18 Nov, 2011 06:06 AM
@dperiman: For the chapters, you will need to create new entries
if you want to cite those chapters later, or treat them as separate
entities in any way. The new entries can be created directly from
the inspector for the book (the inspectors the right panel) and
then edited as needed. Please also check the tutorials on our
Knowledge Base for a detailed demo: http://support.mekentosj.com/kb/tutorials
I'm still thinking that create new entries for each chapter
should apply only when exist two or more (different) files. If we
think in a book like a folder with many chapters (a single PDF with
many chapters - different authors), it could be more flexible and
manageable (AND we don't have a no-file entries on our
I find that book chapters work quite well, but it is confusing
that the contents list of chapters in the information pane of a
book doesn't automatically get longer with more chapters, but has a
hidden scroll bar. Very difficult to see if you have correctly
added the chapters that way!
I also find the tiny preview image doesn't always reflect the pdf,
making them all seem the same. It could be that they need updating
(since I sometimes edit the first page, ie move the JSTOR cover to
the back of the pdf), but I'm not sure how to update the
The icon in the list view is the same for both books and chapters.
This makes it hard to see if you have correctly associated all the
chapters to their books. Perhaps an "associate chapters with book
entry" function would be nice, so that the chapters were able to be
listed under the main book entry, perhaps greyed or indented for
visual clarity. It would also be good if the contents list was
ordered by page numbers when chapters are not numbered.
Alphabetical order doesn't make much sense if pages are
thanks for bringing back those Papers 1 essentials too. It seemed
the scientific/academic base users of Papers were forgotten for a
while, but it is now a useful tool again and I can finally abandon