Skip to main content
Theoretical Computer Science

You are not logged in. Your edit will be placed in a queue until it is peer reviewed.

We welcome edits that make the post easier to understand and more valuable for readers. Because community members review edits, please try to make the post substantially better than how you found it, for example, by fixing grammar or adding additional resources and hyperlinks.

Required fields*

4
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Google Scholar's BibTeX needs serious editing before it can be used in a paper. Honestly, you're better off typing the BibTeX record yourself. $\endgroup$ Commented Mar 5, 2013 at 7:26
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Google Scholar is not alone in this. Machine-generated BibTeX records are offered by e.g. DBLP, Citeseer, Wikipedia, and some journals, and they are all broken (I’d say DBLP is the closest one to being actually usable). Makes me wonder what’s the reason behind this, I would think it cannot be so hard to do it properly. $\endgroup$ Commented Mar 5, 2013 at 13:47
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @JɛffE: I find it much faster to copy and paste the record and edit/add information as needed than to start from scratch. Your experience may be different. $\endgroup$ Commented Mar 5, 2013 at 15:41
  • $\begingroup$ Scholar used to be terrible, then it went away, and in its new incarnation it does seem more useful. Depending on workflow, it might be faster to use it as a basis. $\endgroup$ Commented Mar 5, 2013 at 16:13