I suggest you ...

Improve quality of automatic metadata extraction

Improve the quality of the automatic metadata extraction; add automatic retrieval of metadata from arXiv, PubMed etc.

2,644 votes
Sign in
Signed in as (Sign out)
You have left! (?) (thinking…)
MendeleyAdminMendeley (Admin, Mendeley) shared this idea  ·   ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
Tim McNamaraTim McNamara shared a merged idea: Support Dublin Core metadata extraction from webpages  ·   · 


Sign in
Signed in as (Sign out)
  • Omar MianOmar Mian commented  ·   ·  Flag as inappropriate

    I was actually quite happy with automatic metadata extraction until recently. Seems to me it's got significantly worse since the release of 1.13 earlier this year!

  • Christopher Khalid-JanneyChristopher Khalid-Janney commented  ·   ·  Flag as inappropriate

    I really have to echo everyone else here. This issue is one of the things that made me even consider another service. I looked at Qiqqa recently, and found that Mendeley overall beats them in many of the simplicity factors, but Qiqqa is really light years ahead in the function of metadata find and fill. Their wizard is phenomenal, and really makes life easier, but their duplicate find/fix is ridiculous, and some of the other features get to be slightly unwieldy as well. But, as they improve, they may actually give Mendeley a run for the money. I fell in love with Mendely, but I really want to see some of these things improved, and it is quite disappointing to see these types of issues persisting this long.

  • Maurice AMaurice A commented  ·   ·  Flag as inappropriate

    This feedback item has been around for 6 years and metadata extraction is still terrible. Google Search works inconsistently. Many papers have entries in the Mendeley research catalog, and the "View research catalog entry for this paper" button works, so it is strange that Mendeley can't take the data from there. For instance, this paper:


    has a complete research catalog entry, but shows up in my catalog (via Google Scholar search, only the title and year showed up from the paper) like this:


    The entries with ellipses end there, even though they are incomplete.

  • Ian PhillipsIan Phillips commented  ·   ·  Flag as inappropriate

    If I drop a PDF into Mendeley it does a metadata search on the pdf, typically recognizes the title, year, authors and DOI (if present) with no issues. It typically struggles to recognize the Journal Title. If it finds the DOI (or ArXivIF or PMID) then it will update the metadata, e.g. journal title / URL. It doesn't add the abstract, Author Keywords or Tags.
    While this data may not be available from the DOI directly, it typically is via the URL. Please can this be corrected?
    Conversely, if the DOI is found, then you have the option of "Search by Title". This will typically find the URL, from which all other metadata can be found.
    Currently the process is very manual, which stops people from moving from one management system to another.

  • Sebastian XXSebastian XX commented  ·   ·  Flag as inappropriate

    When using the web importer on SpringerLink to importing a book chapter it is falsely importing the whole book. BibTex import results in an empty entry.

  • Patryk KubiczekPatryk Kubiczek commented  ·   ·  Flag as inappropriate

    For the new style arXiv identifiers (http://arxiv.org/hypertex/bibstyles/) the fields: archivePrefix, eprint and primaryClass are necessary in BibTex file . At the moment Mendeley provides primaryClass only for eprints from before 2007, while for new papers it gives just arXiv ID. I believe you should focus on that problem.

  • Michael JohnsonMichael Johnson commented  ·   ·  Flag as inappropriate

    My Mendeley plugin for Safari is consistently unable to pull metadata from ScienceDirect papers, even when I'm sitting on a page with all the bibliographic info, abstract and a direct link to PDF. Often, the metadata found in google scholar is inadequate. A more consistent and comprehensive search source such as pubmed (for medical literature) would be appreciated as an option.

  • Kate EverlyKate Everly commented  ·   ·  Flag as inappropriate

    I would just appreciate being able to see all the importable fields on the web import window when I first select an item to "Save to Mendeley." If I could correct any errors immediately it would save me having to go find the document in the desktop, go back to web to review and then make the corrections.

  • Carl Edlund AndersonCarl Edlund Anderson commented  ·   ·  Flag as inappropriate

    There are just weird (and what I would think are easily fixable) errors in the way Mendeley gets the metadata from JSTOR PDFs. The way JSTOR presents its metadata within the PDF is a bit old-fashioned (if human-friendly), but quite regular. There's really no reason for Mendeley to confuse the download date with the publication date, etc.

  • Danielle LDanielle L commented  ·   ·  Flag as inappropriate

    Wow, people have been aware of this problem for a long time and it is still not fixed. Any comment from Mendeley?

  • Anonymous commented  ·   ·  Flag as inappropriate

    Is it possible to re-enter document details automatically? Just leave "Search by Title" button.

  • Carl Edlund AndersonCarl Edlund Anderson commented  ·   ·  Flag as inappropriate

    Beyond the improved ability to extract metadata more accurately from 3rd-party resources (whether from the given journal's or publisher's web site, Google Books, or other databases), it seems to me like Mendeley ought to do a better job of mining its own store of metadata, whether stored locally within the given user's local database or from the whole aggregated store of all Mendeley users. It seems like it would be perfectly possible for Mendeley to compare the metadata for a given item in a local database for similarities with metadata for other items in its local or remote databases, and either automatically or upon request suggest alterations additions; e.g. your entry for a given article might be missing an ISSN number, but Mendeley might guess that your entry was the same entry as 20 other people who had metadata for what looked like the same article with the inclusion of the ISSN number, and it could ask you if you wanted to add the ISSN number to your local entry's metadata, etc.

    That shouldn't be that hard, I should think ....? And potentially very useful!

← Previous 1 3 4 5 9 10

Feedback and Knowledge Base