ReadCube Papers für Mac
Ihre persönliche Bibliothek mit wissenschaftlichen Ressourcen.

Ihre persönliche Bibliothek mit wissenschaftlichen Ressourcen.
Was ist ReadCube Papers? Wir haben es uns zur Aufgabe gemacht, die Welt der Forschung zugänglicher und vernetzter zu machen – im Dienste von Forschern, Verlagen sowie akademischen und kommerziellen Organisationen. Papers bietet eine leistungsstarke, plattformübergreifende Suite von Tools für das Literaturmanagement und die Literaturrecherche, die die Art und Weise, wie Forscher wissenschaftliche Literatur finden, darauf zugreifen, organisieren, lesen, mit Anmerkungen versehen, teilen und zitieren, erheblich verbessern können.
Die vollständige Liste der Änderungen finden Sie hier

As with most reviews, I am also a long-term user of Papers (since version 2) who is disappointed by the changes in the current version. All functions are clunky, and most of the great features from Papers v2 and v3 were abandoned. The redCube help is useless, and their support do NOT listen to the user community. I continued to use Papers v3 until I could, but after a macOS update, it stopped working due to lack of support and forced me to use redCube. The reasons for my frustration include, but are not limited to: - Even if I chose my entire library to be "available offline", anytime I ask to open a file, it retrieves it from the cloud (why not use the local copy?....). This means that if I make notes or highlights in my PDFs (using mac's Preview), these will be gone the next time -- unless I make the notes inside redCube, but their annotation system is very limited. This is my most hated backward-feature -- I've lost most of my notes and highlights with this..... - Searching is much worse, and on has to use search tricks to find what one's looking for. Also, being unable to select the sources of our searches is a major step backwards - Matching is horrible, and meta-data often has to be entered manually - Annual Subscription rather than 1-off payment -- what a cheap corporate move - When you apply a nested label, the nesting labels "above" it are not added -- it should inherent the "upper categories", as Papers 2 and 3 did
Kommentare
Nutzerbewertungen