On Aug 31, 2010, at 3:15 PM, Maxwell, Adam R wrote: > > Incidentally, this is part of the reason I recommend RIS over BibTeX when > importing from online sources; we put a lot of work into ensuring that > BibDesk's conversion from RIS to BibTeX gives syntactically and semantically > correct data. Publishers' so-called BibTeX output is often lacking on both > counts!
That's good to know because I would have guessed quite the opposite, i.e., if I want BibTeX citations and the publisher provides them, why bother with RIS... Obviously, in this case the fault is with acs for providing an incomplete bibtex record, including a raw & in the journal title. Thanks Themis ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ This SF.net Dev2Dev email is sponsored by: Show off your parallel programming skills. Enter the Intel(R) Threading Challenge 2010. http://p.sf.net/sfu/intel-thread-sfd _______________________________________________ Bibdesk-users mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bibdesk-users
