Discover

Top AI Citation Management Tools: EndNote, Mendeley, RefWorks, Zotero

Aug 26, 2025 |

26 Mins Read

AI is now being built into some of these tools. These citation management tools are designed to help you with tasks like sorting references, checking for errors, or suggesting relevant sources.

This article explains how citation management works, what challenges it addresses, and how AI is being used in tools like Zotero, EndNote, Mendeley, and RefWorks.

What is citation management and why is it important

Citation management is the process of collecting, organising, and formatting reference information used in academic writing. A reference manager is software that helps with this process by storing citation details and generating bibliographies in different styles.

Writing citations by hand takes time and can lead to mistakes. Formatting errors, missing information, or inconsistent styles are common when done manually.

Citation management tools reduce these errors by automating formatting and organising references into folders or collections. Many of these tools also allow users to import references directly from academic databases.

AI is now improving citation management in several ways:

Automation: AI can detect duplicate entries and organise references automatically
Extraction: It can pull citation information from PDFs and websites
Suggestions: Some tools recommend related research based on your existing library

Comparing Zotero, EndNote, Mendeley, and RefWorks

These four citation management tools help you collect, organise, and cite research sources, but they are built for different users and needs.

Zotero is free, open-source software popular with students and independent researchers. EndNote is often used by institutions and professional researchers working with large reference collections. Mendeley combines reference management with academic networking features. RefWorks is a cloud-based tool designed for institutional use.

Tool	Cost	Platform	Storage
Zotero	Free (basic)	Windows, Mac, Linux	300MB free
EndNote	Paid	Windows, Mac	Unlimited (desktop)
Mendeley	Free (basic)	Windows, Mac, Web, Mobile	2GB free
RefWorks	Subscription	Web-based	Unlimited with subscription

Each tool uses AI differently. Zotero supports plugins that add AI features like citation suggestions. EndNote has tools to find full-text PDFs automatically. Mendeley includes AI recommendations for related research. RefWorks uses AI for document organisation.

Essential AI features for modern reference manager tools

AI in reference managers helps automate tasks that would otherwise be time-consuming and error-prone. These features support accuracy in citation formatting, help organise references, and assist with discovering new sources.

1. Automatic metadata extraction

Automatic metadata extraction uses AI to read documents and pull out citation details like author names, titles, and publication dates. This works by scanning PDFs or web pages and identifying citation patterns.

When you add a PDF to your library, the AI analyses the document structure, looking for title pages, author information, and reference sections. It then creates a citation entry with this information.

This feature is especially helpful when you are importing many documents at once. Zotero and Mendeley both excel at metadata extraction, making them popular citation software for Word integration.

2. Recommendation engines for research discovery

Recommendation engines suggest articles related to ones already in your library. These engines analyse your saved references and reading patterns to find similar research.

For example, if your reference manager contains several papers about climate change, the AI might suggest new climate research that cites or is cited by your saved papers.

Mendeley's recommendation feature examines your library content and suggests related papers from its database of millions of articles. EndNote offers similar functionality through its Web of Science integration.

3. Smart collaboration capabilities

Smart collaboration features help teams manage shared reference libraries. AI helps detect duplicate entries, suggest relevant collaborators, and manage editing conflicts.

For group projects, these features keep shared libraries organised and consistent. When multiple team members add references, AI can identify duplicates even when citation details vary slightly.

RefWorks and Mendeley offer strong collaboration tools. RefWorks allows real-time sharing and editing, while Mendeley lets groups share annotations and organise references together.

Pros and cons of each citation manager

Zotero

Zotero is a free, open-source citation manager developed by a non-profit organisation. It works through a desktop application and browser connector.

Strengths:

Free to use with basic features
Strong community support and regular updates
Excellent at capturing web content and metadata
Works well with both Word and Google Docs

Limitations:

Limited storage (300MB) on free accounts
Fewer built-in AI features compared to commercial options
Basic collaboration tools

Zotero is ideal for students, independent researchers, and anyone who wants a free, reliable citation manager without complex features.

EndNote

EndNote is a commercial citation manager with advanced formatting capabilities. It's commonly used in academic and research institutions.

Strengths:

Powerful formatting options for complex documents
Strong integration with academic databases
Comprehensive search capabilities within the tool
Robust handling of large reference libraries

Limitations:

Requires purchase (though many institutions provide access)
Steeper learning curve than other tools
Less intuitive interface for beginners

EndNote works best for professional researchers, faculty members, and others who need advanced citation features and have institutional support.

Mendeley

Mendeley combines reference management with social networking features. It's owned by Elsevier, a global leader in advanced information and decision support for science and healthcare.

Strengths:

Social features to connect with other researchers
Good PDF annotation and reading tools
AI-powered article recommendations
Free basic version with 2GB storage

Limitations:

Some users have privacy concerns due to Elsevier ownership
Sync issues reported by some users
Premium features require subscription

Mendeley is particularly good for researchers who want to discover new content and connect with colleagues while managing their references.

RefWorks

RefWorks is a web-based citation manager typically accessed through institutional subscriptions. It focuses on ease of use and collaboration.

Strengths:

No software installation required
Good for team projects and collaboration
Works on any computer with internet access
Strong institutional support features

Limitations:

No free version for individual users
Fewer customisation options than other tools
Requires internet connection for most functions

RefWorks is best for students and researchers at institutions with RefWorks subscriptions who need simple, accessible citation management.

Zotero vs EndNote vs Mendeley vs RefWorks: which is best?

The best citation manager depends on your specific needs. There's no one-size-fits-all answer to the Zotero vs EndNote vs Mendeley vs RefWorks question.

For students and budget-conscious users, Zotero offers the best balance of features and cost. Its free version includes all essential functions, and it's relatively easy to learn.

For professional researchers working with large libraries, EndNote provides powerful organisation and formatting tools. Its advanced search functions and database integration justify the cost for many users.

For collaborative teams, both Mendeley and RefWorks offer good sharing features. Mendeley adds social networking, while RefWorks focuses on institutional access and ease of use.

When comparing specific tools:

Zotero vs EndNote: Zotero is free and simpler; EndNote offers more advanced features but costs money
Zotero vs Mendeley: Zotero has better browser integration; Mendeley offers better PDF reading tools
EndNote vs Mendeley: EndNote has more formatting options; Mendeley includes social features
Mendeley vs Zotero: Mendeley offers better recommendations; Zotero has a more open ecosystem

In addition, Zendy works alongside these citation tools by helping users discover and access research content before organising it in their citation manager of choice.

Tips for faster citation software for Word integration

All four major citation managers integrate with Microsoft Word, allowing you to insert citations while writing. This integration saves time and reduces errors.

Installing the plugin

For Zotero, the Word plugin installs automatically with the desktop application. After installation, check Word for a "Zotero" tab in the ribbon.

EndNote's "Cite While You Write" plugin also installs with the main program. If it doesn't appear in Word, open EndNote and select "Customize" to enable it.

Mendeley requires downloading "Mendeley Cite" separately from their website. This add-in works with recent versions of Word.

RefWorks uses the "RefWorks Citation Manager" add-in, which can be installed from Word's Add-ins store.

If a plugin doesn't appear, try restarting Word or checking that your citation manager is running.

Adding citations to your document

To add citations with Zotero, click the "Add/Edit Citation" button in Word. A search box appears where you can type author names or keywords to find references in your library.

With EndNote, use the "Insert Citation" button, then search your library. You can also insert multiple citations at once.

Mendeley Cite shows a sidebar where you can search your library and click references to insert them.

RefWorks Citation Manager also uses a sidebar approach, with search functionality and citation preview.

All these tools format citations according to your chosen style (APA, MLA, Chicago, etc.) and automatically create a bibliography at the end of your document.

Looking ahead: how AI shapes the future of citation management

AI is changing how researchers manage citations and discover new research. Future developments will likely make these tools even more helpful.

Natural Language Processing (NLP) is improving how citation tools extract information from documents. This means more accurate automatic citations from PDFs and web pages.

AI tools are getting better at suggesting relevant research based on your existing library and reading patterns. This helps researchers discover important work they might otherwise miss.

Some citation tools are beginning to explore integration with generative AI to help summarise articles, identify key citations, and even assist with literature reviews.

Zendy complements these citation managers with AI-powered research discovery and organisation tools. Its features help researchers find relevant content before adding it to their citation libraries.

The best citation managers will continue incorporating AI to make research workflows more efficient while maintaining accuracy and proper attribution.

Frequently asked questions about AI citation management

How do I choose between Zotero, EndNote, Mendeley, and RefWorks?

Consider your budget (Zotero is free, EndNote is paid), collaboration needs (RefWorks and Mendeley excel here), and institutional support (many universities provide EndNote or RefWorks). Try the free version of any tool before committing to see which interface you prefer.

Can I transfer my references between different citation managers?

Yes, most citation managers support exporting and importing references using standard formats like RIS or BibTeX. The transfer usually preserves basic citation information, though some custom notes or organisation may require adjustment.

Which citation manager has the best AI features currently?

Mendeley offers the strongest built-in AI features, particularly for research recommendations. EndNote provides powerful search and organisation tools. Zotero supports AI features through community-developed plugins.

Do citation managers work with Google Docs as well as Microsoft Word?

Zotero and RefWorks have direct Google Docs integration. Mendeley and EndNote have more limited Google Docs support, with EndNote requiring workarounds to use with Google's platform.

Are the AI features in citation managers difficult to use for beginners?

Most AI features in citation managers work automatically in the background. Features like metadata extraction happen when you add documents, while recommendations appear as suggestions. These require little technical knowledge to use effectively.

From Boolean to Intelligent Search: A Librarian’s Guide to Smarter Information Retrieval

For decades, librarians have been the trusted guides in the vast world of information. But today, that world has grown into something far more complex. Databases multiply, metadata standards evolve, and users expect instant answers. Traditional search still relies on structured logic, keywords, operators, and carefully crafted queries. AI enhances this by interpreting intent rather than just words. Instead of matching text, AI tools for librarians analyse meaning. A researcher looking for “climate change effects on migration” won’t just get papers containing those words, but research exploring environmental displacement, socioeconomic factors, and regional studies. This shift from keyword to context means librarians can spend less time teaching a researcher how to “speak database” and more time helping them evaluate and use the results effectively. The Evolution of Library Search Traditional search engines focus on keywords and often return long lists of potential matches. With AI, libraries can now benefit from search engines that employ natural language processing (NLP) and machine learning (ML) to understand user queries and map them to the most relevant resources, even when key terms are missing or imprecise. Semantic search, embedding-based retrieval, and vector databases allow AI to find conceptually similar resources and suggest new directions for research. Examples of AI Tools for Librarians AI ToolMain FunctionLibrarian BenefitZendyAI-powered platform offering literature discovery, summarisation, keyphrase highlighting, and PDF analysisSupports researchers with instant insights, simplifies literature reviews, and improves discovery across 40M+ publicationsConsensusAI-powered academic search enginemanaging citation libraries, efficient literature reviewEx Libris PrimoIntegrates AI for discovery and metadata managementImproves record accuracy and user experienceMeilisearchFast, scalable vector search with NLPEnhanced search for large content databases The Ethics of Intelligent Search AI doesn’t just retrieve; it prioritises. AI tools for librarians determine which results appear first, whose research receives visibility, and what remains hidden. This creates ethical questions around transparency and bias. Librarians are uniquely positioned to question those algorithms, advocate for equitable access, and ensure users understand how results are ranked. In an AI-driven world, digital literacy extends beyond knowing how to search—it’s about learning how machines think. In conclusion AI tools for librarians are becoming more accessible. Platforms now integrate summarisation, concept mapping, and citation analysis directly into search. helping librarians and users avoid unreliable content. For libraries, experimenting with these tools can mean faster reference responses, smarter cataloguing, and better support for researchers drowning in information overload. .wp-block-image img { max-width: 85% !important; margin-left: auto !important; margin-right: auto !important; }

Oct 10, 202516 Mins ReadDiscover

Why AI like ChatGPT still quotes retracted papers?

AI models like ChatGPT are trained on massive datasets collected at specific moments in time, which means they lack awareness of papers retracted after their training cutoff. When a scientific paper gets retracted, whether due to errors, fraud, or ethical violations, most AI systems continue referencing it as if nothing happened. This creates a troubling scenario where researchers using AI assistants might unknowingly build their work on discredited foundations. In other words: retracted papers are the academic world's way of saying "we got this wrong, please disregard." Yet the AI tools designed to help us navigate research faster often can't tell the difference between solid science and work that's been officially debunked. ChatGPT and other assistants tested Recent studies examined how popular AI research tools handle retracted papers, and the results were concerning. Researchers tested ChatGPT, Google's Gemini, and similar language models by asking them about known retracted papers. In many cases, they not only failed to flag the retractions but actively praised the withdrawn studies. One investigation found that ChatGPT referenced retracted cancer imaging research without any warning to users, presenting the flawed findings as credible. The problem extends beyond chatbots to AI-powered literature review tools that researchers increasingly rely on for efficiency. Common failure scenarios The risks show up across different domains, each with its own consequences: Medical guidance: Healthcare professionals consulting AI for clinical information might receive recommendations based on studies withdrawn for data fabrication or patient safety concerns Literature reviews: Academic researchers face citation issues when AI assistants suggest retracted papers, damaging credibility and delaying peer review Policy decisions: Institutional leaders making evidence-based choices might rely on AI-summarised research without realising the underlying studies have been retracted A doctor asking about treatment protocols could unknowingly follow advice rooted in discredited research. Meanwhile, detecting retracted citations manually across hundreds of references proves nearly impossible for most researchers. How Often Retractions Slip Into AI Training Data The scale of retracted papers entering AI systems is larger than most people realise. Crossref, the scholarly metadata registry that tracks digital object identifiers (DOIs) for academic publications, reports thousands of retraction notices annually. Yet many AI models were trained on datasets harvested years ago, capturing papers before retraction notices appeared. Here's where timing becomes critical. A paper published in 2020 and included in an AI training dataset that same year might get retracted in 2023. If the model hasn't been retrained with updated data, it remains oblivious to the retraction. Some popular language models go years between major training updates, meaning their knowledge of the research landscape grows increasingly outdated. Lag between retraction and model update Training Large Language Models requires enormous computational resources and time, which explains why most AI companies don't continuously update their systems. Even when retraining occurs, the process of identifying and removing retracted papers from massive datasets presents technical challenges that many organisations haven't prioritised solving. The result is a growing gap between the current state of scientific knowledge and what AI assistants "know." You might think AI systems could simply check retraction databases in real-time before responding, but most don't. Instead, they generate responses based solely on their static training data, unaware that some information has been invalidated. Risks of Citing Retracted Papers in Practice The consequences of AI-recommended retracted papers extend beyond embarrassment. When flawed research influences decisions, the ripple effects can be substantial and long-lasting. Clinical decision errors Healthcare providers increasingly turn to AI tools for quick access to medical literature, especially when facing unfamiliar conditions or emerging treatments. If an AI assistant recommends a retracted study on drug efficacy or surgical techniques, clinicians might implement approaches that have been proven harmful or ineffective. The 2020 hydroxychloroquine controversy illustrated how quickly questionable research spreads. Imagine that dynamic accelerated by AI systems that can't distinguish between valid and retracted papers. Policy and funding implications Government agencies and research institutions often use AI tools to synthesise large bodies of literature when making funding decisions or setting research priorities. Basing these high-stakes choices on retracted work wastes resources and potentially misdirects entire fields of inquiry. A withdrawn climate study or economic analysis could influence policy for years before anyone discovers the AI-assisted review included discredited research. Academic reputation damage For individual researchers, citing retracted papers carries professional consequences. Journals may reject manuscripts, tenure committees question research rigour, and collaborators lose confidence. While honest mistakes happen, the frequency of such errors increases when researchers rely on AI tools that lack retraction awareness, and the responsibility still falls on the researcher, not the AI. Why Language Models Miss Retraction Signals The technical architecture of most AI research assistants makes them inherently vulnerable to the retraction problem. Understanding why helps explain what solutions might actually work. Corpus quality controls lacking AI models learn from their training corpus, the massive collection of text they analyse during development. Most organisations building these models prioritise breadth over curation, scraping academic databases, preprint servers, and publisher websites without rigorous quality checks. The assumption is that more data produces better models, but this approach treats all papers equally regardless of retraction status. Even when training data includes retraction notices, the AI might not recognise them as signals to discount the paper's content. A retraction notice is just another piece of text unless the model has been specifically trained to understand its significance. Sparse or inconsistent metadata Publishers handle retractions differently, creating inconsistencies that confuse automated systems: Some journals add "RETRACTED" to article titles Others publish separate retraction notices A few quietly remove papers entirely This lack of standardisation means AI systems trained to recognise one retraction format might miss others completely. Metadata، the structured information describing each paper, often fails to consistently flag retraction status across databases. A paper retracted in PubMed might still appear without warning in other indexes that AI training pipelines access. Hallucination and overconfidence AI hallucination occurs when models generate plausible-sounding but false information, and it exacerbates the retraction problem. Even if a model has no information about a topic, it might confidently fabricate citations or misremember details from its training data. This overconfidence means AI assistants rarely express uncertainty about the papers they recommend, leaving users with no indication that additional verification is needed. Real-Time Retraction Data Sources Researchers Should Trust While AI tools struggle with retractions, several authoritative databases exist for manual verification. Researchers concerned about citation integrity can cross-reference their sources against these resources. Retraction Watch Database Retraction Watch operates as an independent watchdog, tracking retractions across all academic disciplines and publishers. Their freely accessible database includes detailed explanations of why papers were withdrawn, from honest error to fraud. The organisation's blog also provides context about patterns in retractions and systemic issues in scholarly publishing. Crossref metadata service Crossref maintains the infrastructure that assigns DOIs to scholarly works, and publishers report retractions through this system. While coverage depends on publishers properly flagging retractions, Crossref offers a comprehensive view across multiple disciplines and publication types. Their API allows developers to build tools that automatically check retraction status, a capability that forward-thinking platforms are beginning to implement. PubMed retracted publication tag For medical and life sciences research, PubMed provides reliable retraction flagging with daily updates. The National Library of Medicine maintains this database with rigorous quality control, ensuring retracted papers receive prominent warning labels. However, this coverage is limited to biomedical literature, leaving researchers in other fields without equivalent resources. DatabaseCoverageUpdate SpeedAccessRetraction WatchAll disciplinesReal-timeFreeCrossrefPublisher-reportedVariableFree APIPubMedMedical/life sciencesDailyFree Responsible AI Starts with Licensing When AI systems access research papers, articles, or datasets, authors and publishers have legal and ethical rights that need protection. Ignoring these rights can undermine the sustainability of the research ecosystem and diminish trust between researchers and technology providers. One of the biggest reasons AI tools get it wrong is that they often cite retracted papers as if they’re still valid. When an article is retracted, e.g. due to peer review process not being conducted properly or failing to meet established standards, most AI systems don’t know, it simply remains part of their training data. This is where licensing plays a crucial role. Licensed data ensures that AI systems are connected to the right sources, continuously updated with accurate, publisher-verified information. It’s the foundation for what platforms like Zendy aim to achieve: making sure the content is clean and trustworthy. Licensing ensures that content is used responsibly. Proper agreements between AI companies and copyright holders allow AI systems to access material legally while providing attribution and, when appropriate, compensation. This is especially important when AI tools generate insights or summaries that are distributed at scale, potentially creating value for commercial platforms without benefiting the sources of the content. in conclusion, consent-driven licensing helps build trust. Publishers and authors can choose whether and how their work is incorporated into AI systems, ensuring that content is included only when rights are respected. Advanced AI platforms, such as Zendy, can even track which licensed sources contributed to a particular output, providing accountability and a foundation for equitable revenue sharing. .wp-block-image img { max-width: 85% !important; margin-left: auto !important; margin-right: auto !important; }

Oct 1, 20255 Mins ReadDiscover

5 Tools Every Librarian Should Know in 2025

The role of librarians has always been about connecting people with knowledge. But in 2025, with so much information floating around online, the challenge isn’t access, it’s sorting through the noise and finding what really matters. This is where AI for libraries is starting to make a difference. Here are five that are worth keeping in your back pocket this year. 1. Zendy Zendy is a one-stop AI-powered research library that blends open access with subscription-based resources. Instead of juggling multiple platforms, librarians can point students and researchers to one place where they’ll find academic articles, reports, and AI tools to help with research discovery and literature review. With its growing use of AI for libraries, Zendy makes it easier to summarise research, highlight key ideas, and support literature reviews without adding to the librarian’s workload. 2. LibGuides Still one of the most practical tools for librarians, LibGuides makes it easy to create tailored resource guides for courses, programs, or specific assignments. Whether you’re curating resources for first-year students or putting together a subject guide for advanced research, it helps librarians stay organised while keeping information accessible to learners. 3. OpenRefine Cleaning up messy data is nobody’s favourite job, but it’s a reality when working with bibliographic records or digital archives. OpenRefine is like a spreadsheet, but with superpowers, it can quickly detect duplicates, fix formatting issues, and make large datasets more manageable. For librarians working in cataloguing or digital collections, it saves hours of tedious work. 4. PressReader Library patrons aren’t just looking for academic content; they often want newspapers, magazines, and general reading material too. PressReader gives libraries a simple way to provide access to thousands of publications from around the world. It’s especially valuable in public libraries or institutions with international communities. 5. OCLC WorldShare Managing collections and sharing resources across institutions is a constant task. OCLC WorldShare helps libraries handle cataloguing, interlibrary loans, and metadata management. It’s not flashy, but it makes collaboration between libraries smoother and ensures that resources don’t sit unused when another community could benefit from them. Final thought The tools above aren’t just about technology, they’re about making everyday library work more practical. Whether it’s curating resources with Zendy, cleaning data with OpenRefine, or sharing collections through WorldShare, these platforms help librarians do what they do best: guide people toward knowledge that matters. .wp-block-image img { max-width: 85% !important; margin-left: auto !important; margin-right: auto !important; }

Return to blogs

Accelerating Research