DTPO has changed workflow - help!

I’ve recently upgraded to DTPO to make use of the OCR, which is amazing - especially having put a hot folder on the desktop to automatically import/OCR/delete files. But this has made me rethink how to store, annotate and cite. I really only use DTPO to manage academic research.

Previously, I was performing OCR on PDFs using acrobat and then importing/annotating/managing them using Sente, and sending notes etc. to DTP. Now I’m wondering if I import/OCR them in DTPO, and then export them to Sente wouldn’t that create duplicates?

One solution I came up with was to put everything into DTPO, and then only export references I actually need to cite. But this doesn’t solve the problem of duplicates taking up extra space needlessly.

Does anyone have any suggestions? To summarise: I need to store, annotate and cite PDFs - usually in Scrivener. The apps I’ve got to play around with include DTPO, Sente, Hazel and a trial of Papers 3. The Papers 3 trial is because I’m frustrated with how clunky Sente is with regard to importing files. Should I focus on DTPO and switch to a lighter bibliography manager? So many options. All help welcome!

The trick is to have a folder with all your pdfs managed by Sente but indexed by DTPO. That way both apps are working from the same folder and there is no duplication.

This is what I do with Bookends, my citation manger. It worked when I used Sente too, but that’s a while ago, so check the documentation for details or search the web. There’s a lot of stuff out there about integrating the two apps.

This is an old post, but I’ll throw in my two cents anyway.

My advice is to stay away from Papers 3. I’m sure you’ve looked as well, but my research on Papers 3 tells me that it has been a nightmare for many of its users. Plus it has a history of “breaking” the database when it makes major updates (e.g. Papers 1 --> Papers 2, etc.). From what I’ve been able to tell one of the most “stable” of all the reference managers has been Bookends. It’s the one I use and the one I recommend to my students. I think it best summarized by “It ain’t pretty, but it just works.”

Now, that said, I still try to work with PDF’s in DevonThink as much as possible. The scripting alone simply makes it the most streamlined option for me. In my workflow I highlight (sometimes underline) and make notes on what I highlight. Doing as much of that as possible within DevonThink (or Acrobat if I have to) means that those notes and highlights are visible no matter what reader I use. I’ve tried Skim, Highlights, and some others, but my challenge is that those highlights aren’t consistently visible in other readers. Plus, highlighting and noting in DT is just one additional step I don’t have to take. All my notes are easily searchable, automatically connected to the document they’re based on, and eligible for the wonderful DT “See and Also Classify”.