Finding full texts in bulk: a comparison of EndNote 20 versus Zotero 6 using the University of York's subscriptions.

Abstract

Objective: To understand the performance of EndNote 20 and Zotero 6's full text retrieval features.

Methods: Using the University of York's subscriptions, we tested and compared EndNote and Zotero's full text retrieval. 1,000 records from four evidence synthesis projects were tested for the number of: full texts retrieved; available full texts retrieved; unique full texts (found by one program only); and differences in versions of full texts for the same record. We also tested the time taken and accuracy of retrieved full texts. One dataset was tested multiple times to confirm if the number of full texts retrieved was consistent. We also investigated the available full texts missed by EndNote or Zotero by: reference type; whether full texts were available open access or via subscription; and the content provider.

Results: EndNote retrieved 47% of available full texts versus 52% by Zotero. Zotero was faster by 2 minutes 15 seconds. Each program found unique full texts. There were differences in full text versions retrieved between programs. For both programs, 99% of the retrieved full texts were accurate. Zotero was less consistent in the number of full texts it retrieved.

Conclusion: EndNote and Zotero do not find all available full texts. Users should not assume full texts are correct; are the version of record; or that records without full texts cannot be retrieved manually. Repeating the full text retrieval process multiple times could yield additional full texts. Users with access to EndNote and Zotero could use both for full text retrieval.