JabRef-Browser-Extension

JabRef-Browser-Extension copied to clipboard

Some papers have a 2nd PDF called SI, which stands for supplementary information. In paleontology, it are mostly data sets, graphs or other calculations which are too detailed to put in the paper itself.

I'would like to request for the browser extension a check if SI PDF is available and if there is one, download it and put it as 2nd PDF in the "file" field (while 1st PDF is the original paper).

Are you interested in adding an experimental checkbox "download supplementary information" in the browser extension? (which is disabled by default)

I asked here and they are working on it: https://github.com/zotero/translators/issues/3129 It's a setting you must enable in zotero translator.

Sure, but let's wait until it's actually working on Zotero's side.

Great! Thanks a lot for this extension. It's a real fantastic add-on for jabref!

Notice a possible issue with this: I believe, currently, JabRef's linked files might not support downloading multiple files of the same extension.

I haven't properly checked yet, but from looking at the code (and one instance in the past of this or something similar happening, but I didn't test further), it seems like any downloaded file would have the name changed to [bibtexkey] (or whatever you have defined for it) so files might get overwritten (or maybe have some (2) appended, if lucky).

It might be that an extra [] field should be added for the file name pattern like [file_description] so that the description set in the LinkedFile dialog can be used there; such as ArXiv Fulltext PDF, then you could also have ArXiv Supplementary Information or something like that.

@ror3d Jabref should actually be able to download such files, and then automatically rename them to avoid the naming conflict. If it's not working correctly, please open a new issue at the main jabref repo. (and best add an easy reproduction using the import via cli argument flag)

Yes, at some point I'll investigate what happened with that.

But still, as the renaming works right now, you would get two files with the same name except one will have "(1)" appended to it, right?

yes, that would be the expected behavior.