Quick note on an app I threw together using the Mendeley API that I discussed in the previous post. This app is crude, and given that the Mendeley API is rate-limited and in flux it might not work for you.The basic idea is to embellish make the list of literature cited in an article with information that might help a reader decide whether a given citation is worth reading. One clue might be how many people on Mendeley are reading that article.

Menedeley's API has been publicly launched at http://dev.mendeley.com/, accompanied by various announcements such as:All good fun to be sure, but it's a pity more effort has been spent on Easter eggs than on documenting and testing the API. If you visit the API development site there's precious little in the way of documentation, and few examples.

Mendeley have called for proposals to use their forthcoming API. The API will publicly available soon, but in a clever move Mendeley will provide early access to developers with cool ideas.Image by Mendeley.com Given that the major limitation of the Biodiversity Heritage Library (from my perspective) is the lack of article-level metadata, and Mendeley has potentially lots of such data, I wonder whether this is something that could be explored.

The ability to create PDFs for the articles BioStor extracts from the Biodiversity Heritage Library has been the single most requested feature for BioStor. I've taken a while to get around to this -- for a bunch of reasons -- but I've finally added it today.

Hot on the heels of Geoffrey Nunberg's essay about the train wreck that is Google books metadata (see my earlier post) comes Google Scholar’s Ghost Authors, Lost Authors, and Other Problems by Péter Jacsó. It's a fairly scathing look at some of the problems with the quality of Google Scholar's metadata.Now, Google Scholar isn't perfect, but it's come to play a key role in a variety of bibliographic tools, such as Mendeley, and Papers.