Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

How to populate abstracts? #8208

Open
2 tasks done
alfureu opened this issue Nov 3, 2021 · 7 comments
Open
2 tasks done

How to populate abstracts? #8208

alfureu opened this issue Nov 3, 2021 · 7 comments

Comments

@alfureu
Copy link

alfureu commented Nov 3, 2021

JabRef version

5.3 (latest release)

Operating system

Windows

Details on version and operating system

Windows 10

Checked with the latest development build

  • I made a backup of my libraries before testing the latest development version.
  • I have tested the latest development version and the problem persists

Steps to reproduce the behaviour

I would like to mass-populate the abstracts of bibliography entries

  1. Select entries
  2. Right click > Get blibliographic data from DOI/ISBN/...
  3. Data populates, but no abstract
  4. Right click on the same entry > Open URL or DOI
  5. Webpage loads - there is an abstract available

Appendix

N/A

@koppor
Copy link
Member

koppor commented Nov 3, 2021

We use external services. For DOI fetching, JabRef uses the crossref service (see also https://docs.jabref.org/faq#q-why-cant-jabref-find-any-doi-isbn-eprint-etc.)

One could try to implement fetching abstract functionality to the existing fetchers (https://devdocs.jabref.org/advanced-reading/fetchers) and then craft a composite fetcher first fetching the DOI and then fetching the abstract from the publisher where the paper belongs so.

@koppor koppor added this to Normal priority in Features & Enhancements via automation Nov 3, 2021
@koppor koppor moved this from Normal priority to Low priority in Features & Enhancements Nov 3, 2021
@alfureu
Copy link
Author

alfureu commented Nov 3, 2021

Thanks for the reply. This would be more than advisable, given the fact that there are all the "optional fields" and other fields (e.g. keywords) available on the websites, but are never populated. I need to do some analysis on a large set of literature, and it would be easier to analyse the abstracts as well.

Maybe introducing a switch e.g. minimal data/complete data in the settings for the user can enable this option, namely, whether to populate all available data (time consuming but complete), or necessary data (fast).

@Siedlerchr
Copy link
Member

The JabRef browser extension is helpful for importing data, if often includes the abstract as well

@alfureu
Copy link
Author

alfureu commented Jan 30, 2022

Thanks @Siedlerchr, this is certainly possibly, but what I had in mind is more the "Add new entry" option, when one searches for a single DOI, and then imports the additional entry infos.

image

This should also include the abstract, because currently it does not. One has to click on the links after import, and copy&paste the abstract manually (including all the other missing data, e.g. keywords).

@Siedlerchr
Copy link
Member

Yes, I know this is unfortunate, but the doi.org response gives us only the BibTeX back without the abstract. I can only guess, but it may have been something to do with the fact that abstracts are copyrighted.

@alfureu
Copy link
Author

alfureu commented Mar 5, 2024

just bumped into this, can we maybe use services like semanticscholar or similar to get the abstracts? it is really a pain not having them

@koppor
Copy link
Member

koppor commented Mar 5, 2024

When implementing, I think, a new AbstractFetcher needs to be created.

Hints on implementation at https://devdocs.jabref.org/code-howtos/fetchers.html

Note that we have an EntryBasedFetcher to complete an entry. However, I don't know how this is accessible in the UI.

Finally, some fetchers fetch the abstracts. We only remove them after fetching in test cases.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
Status: Low priority
Status: Normal priority
Features & Enhancements
  
Low priority
Development

No branches or pull requests

3 participants