The best PDF app for Managing, Reading, and Editing — The Sweet Setup
Forgot Your Password. Reset Password mail sent, please check your inbox for further processing. Would you like to reset your password? Please enter an email address and we will send you a reset link.
Thanks for the download. Please check your email for the link. Remove All. PDF Expert. Read More. Notability Note Taking Software. Files Folders.
Ivy Documents. Online Check Writer. Our only complaint is the thickest line thickness is still a little thin for many forms. It used to be that you could only stow one signature in PDF Expert.
PDF Expert allows you to switch between vertical and horizontal scrolling modes, both of which perform admirably. You can also view PDFs in two-page mode. This is great for providing an overview of a specific section in a PDF, and is doubly good on the largest The two-page viewing mode gets a little cramped on the inch iPad Pro, but will do the job in a pinch. This is helpful for providing larger text when viewing in two-page mode on an inch iPad Pro, but otherwise eliminates margins where many tend to create annotations.
The voice reads quite slow by default, so make sure to tap on the gear icon and speed up the voice a little. Pushing the speed all the way to the hare end of the spectrum is ridiculously fast — somewhere right in the middle should do for most people.
Overall, the reading experience is solid, offering one of the fastest renderings of large PDF files we tested. In other words, no matter what your office uses, you can probably sync your documents in the app. Readdle has also created a secure and fast way to transfer PDFs from your iPad to your Mac and vice versa when both devices are connected to the same local network. Enter the code into the site on your Mac and watch as your Mac and iPad instantly connect to one another.
Opening PDFs on the Mac is lightning quick and can be viewed right in the browser, or can be downloaded locally to your Mac. The app also allows you to enable iOS Data Protection file-encryption system. These are great options that help keep access to your cloud storage secure but easily accessible to you.
Foxit has stormed onto the iPad in recent memory after hitting its stride on Windows. Foxit has great design taste, a strong set of tools in its free tier, and a reasonable annual subscription for editing, organizing, and filling and signing forms.
Commenting tools — which oddly includes highlighting, underlining, comment boxes, and more — are diverse and customizable.
Second, signatures are super finicky in Foxit as of the time of writing. You can create and save multiple signatures, however placing and resizing and reshaping signatures is super frustrating.
This could be a bug, or even something related to the iPadOS 15 public beta. But if signatures are fundamental to your PDF work, this may give you pause. Apple Pencil support is present and totally workable, however some interesting UX choices here have it feeling awkward.
The Pencil performs dual usage based on how long you tap. PDF Expert handles this by making all finger-based gestures navigational and all Apple Pencil taps and gestures as annotations.
Fillable PDFs work well inside Foxit. All fillable fields are highlighted in blue, just like they are in PDF Expert. Filling in fields is quick and you can use the included bar above the keyboard to jump between fields with ease. Searching an OCRed PDF is a breeze inside Foxit, as search results show up in a sidebar after you perform your search query and you can tap between the results in the sidebar.
Search was fast, efficient, and spot on, every time. For instance, if you’re looking at a document, you’ll be shown the tools for sharing, zooming, and browsing through annotations; tap the annotation button, and the app brings you into Annotation mode, with its various tools — still simplified into easy-to-understand icons.
PDF Viewer is simple and streamlined enough to help you get all the basics done without much fuss. The free download offers basic PDF reading, annotation, and digital signatures, but it really shines with the advanced tools that you can get via in-app purchases.
You can create customizable “stamps” for oft-used annotations a friend to copy editors everywhere , edit the structure of the PDF, zip multiple documents together, password-protect your files, and sync with iCloud. The Pro upgrade takes those tools one step further and allows you to physically crack open a PDF and edit it on the spot.
Have a spelling error in your ready-to-print proof? You get the basics for free, and more powerful features with a PRO subscription. I’ve rewritten this intro to LiquidText about five times now, largely because the multitouch annotation app has this slippery way of defying description.
A traditional sign-and-form-fill annotation app this is not — LiquidText is built for projects, novels, research papers, and dusty libraries. Lawyer and Mac enthusiast David Sparks describes it as being “engineered around the idea of reviewing long PDF documents better. There’s a better way to organize your research, and this app is it.
At its core, LiquidText focuses on the pain point of annotating lengthy documents, giving users a number of tools to do it in a way wholly unlike any other PDF app on the market.
You can use multitouch gestures to pinch together large sections of a document. For instance, you could look at an introductory thesis statement next to its midpoint argument to see if it properly connects the dots. You can pull annotations out from the document they belong to — like clippings or post-its — and organize them together or even link them along the right side of the screen.
And all of this is lightning fast and wholly enjoyable, thanks to LiquidText’s speedy and simple UI. The Apple Pencil makes all of this even better, giving users specific gestures to highlight and pull out annotations as they review documents. For those who need this kind of workflow, there’s no better app than LiquidText out there — and possibly no better workflow. LiquidText is a PDF app that is built for those who are working on lengthy research papers, novels, and other in-depth projects.
Last edited by Marinolino; at PM. PDF Viewer 2. Give Readdle Documents a try. All times are GMT The time now is PM. Mark Forums Read. User Name. Remember Me? Tip Got Facebook? Thread Tools. Find More Posts by devnull.
Find More Posts by Marinolino.
Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) – Wikipedia.PDF Expert vs Notability Comparison | replace.me
For example, results of an early-stage clinical trial would not be appropriate in the ‘Treatment’ section of a disease article because future treatments have little bearing on current practice. The results might — in some cases — be appropriate for inclusion in an article specifically dedicated to the treatment in question or to the researchers or businesses involved in it.
Such information, particularly when citing secondary sources, may be appropriate in research sections of disease articles. To prevent misunderstanding, the text should clearly identify the level of research cited e. Several formal systems exist for assessing the quality of available evidence on medical subjects. Respect the levels of evidence: Do not reject a higher-level source e. Editors should not perform detailed academic peer review. In vitro studies and animal models serve a central role in research, and are invaluable in determining mechanistic pathways and generating hypotheses.
However, in vitro and animal-model findings do not translate consistently into clinical effects in human beings. Where in vitro and animal-model data are cited on Wikipedia, it should be clear to the reader that the data are pre-clinical, and the article text should avoid stating or implying that reported findings hold true in humans.
The level of support for a hypothesis should be evident to a reader. Using small-scale, single studies makes for weak evidence, and allows for cherry picking of data. Studies cited or mentioned in Wikipedia should be put in context by using high-quality secondary sources rather than by using the primary sources. Keeping an article up-to-date while maintaining the more-important goal of reliability is important.
These instructions are appropriate for actively researched areas with many primary sources and several reviews, and may need to be relaxed in areas where little progress is being made or where few reviews are published. Many treatments or proposed treatments lack good research into their efficacy and safety.
In such cases, reliable sources may be difficult to find, while unreliable sources are readily available. When writing about medical claims not supported by mainstream research, it is vital that third-party , independent sources be used. Sources written and reviewed by the advocates of marginal ideas may be used to describe personal opinions, but extreme care should be taken when using such sources lest more controversial opinions be taken at face value or, worse, asserted as fact.
If independent sources discussing a medical subject are of low quality, then it is likely that the subject itself is not notable enough to have its own article or relevant for mention in other articles. Symposia and supplements to academic journals are commonly sponsored by industry groups with a financial interest in the outcome of the research reported.
They may lack independent editorial oversight and peer review with no supervision of content by the parent journal. Bias caused by conflicts of interest is an important issue in medical research. It arises in part due to financial interests that compete within medicine. Disclosure of conflicts of interest is mandated, but isn’t always done — and even when it is may not be helpful.
A source can also simply be bad, where biases in criteria make it less than ideal. Claims of bias should not be made lightly — if you simply call out results as biased, you may introduce your own bias. Claims of bias should be sourced to reliable secondary sources, and are not reason to omit sources without consensus — instead, qualify sources with information of why a source may be biased, and who is calling it biased.
Obvious or overt bias in a source is a difficult problem for Wikipedia. If there is consensus on an article that a certain source should be omitted for bias, it may be excluded. If no high-quality source exists for a controversial statement it is best to leave it out; this is not bias. Use your best judgement when writing about topics where you may have a conflict of interest: citing yourself on Wikipedia is problematic. Citing your own organization, such as a governmental health agency or an NGO producing high-quality systematic reviews is generally acceptable — if it is done to improve coverage of a topic, and not with the sole purpose of driving traffic to your site.
All edits should improve neutral encyclopedic coverage; anything else, such as promoting an organization is not allowed. According to the conflict of interest guideline — conflicts of interest COI must be disclosed.
Editing on topics where one is involved or closely related, especially when there is potential financial gain, is discouraged. Medicine is not an exception. One way to contribute with a COI is to post on talk-pages, suggesting edits.
Another alternative is the articles for creation pathway. These methods are often best when writing about oneself, one’s organization or company — but may be less so when there is a potential conflict of interest in a research field.
For example, one may legitimately be an authority on a certain topic — a volunteer who reads the talk-page will not always have the knowledge to assess the sources properly.
Then it is better to follow ordinary editing protocol, disclosing any COI and to be careful not to overemphasize your own sources. A Wikipedia article should cite high-quality reliable sources regardless of whether they require a fee or a subscription. Some high-prestige journals, such as JAMA , publish a few freely readable articles even though most are not free. A few high-quality journals, such as PLoS Medicine , publish only freely readable sources.
Also, a few sources are in the public domain ; these include many U. When searching for biomedical sources , it is wise to skim-read everything available, including abstracts of papers that are not freely readable, and use that to get a feel for what reliable sources are saying.
However, when it comes to actually writing a Wikipedia article, it is misleading to give a full citation for a source after reading only its abstract; the abstract necessarily presents a stripped-down version of the conclusions and omits the background that can be crucial for understanding exactly what the source says, and may not represent the article’s actual conclusions.
Peer-reviewed medical journals are a natural choice as a source for up-to-date medical information in Wikipedia articles. Journal articles come in many different types, and are a mixture of primary and secondary sources. Primary publications describe new research, while review articles summarize and integrate a topic of research into an overall view. In medicine, primary sources include clinical trials, which test new treatments.
In addition to experiments, primary sources normally contain introductory, background, or review sections that place their research in the context of previous work; these sections may be cited in Wikipedia with care: they are often incomplete  and typically less reliable than reviews or other sources, such as textbooks, which are intended to be reasonably comprehensive.
If challenged by another editor in good faith, the primary source should be supplemented with a more appropriate source.
Broadly speaking, reviews may be narrative or systematic and sometimes both. Narrative reviews provide a general summary of a topic based on a survey of the literature, which can be useful when outlining a topic.
A general narrative review of a subject by an expert in the field can make a good secondary source covering various aspects of a subject within a Wikipedia article. Such reviews typically do not contain primary research, but can make interpretations and draw conclusions from primary sources that no Wikipedia editor would be allowed to do.
Systematic reviews use sophisticated methodology to address a particular clinical question in as balanced unbiased a way as possible. Some systematic reviews also include a statistical meta-analysis to combine the results of several clinical trials to provide stronger quantitative evidence about how well a treatment works for a particular purpose. A systematic review uses a reproducible methodology to select primary or sometimes secondary studies meeting explicit criteria to address a specific question.
Such reviews should be more reliable and accurate and less prone to bias than a narrative review. It is normally best to use reviews and meta-analyses where possible. Reviews give a balanced and general perspective of a topic, and are usually easier to understand.
However, whereas a narrative review may give a panorama of current knowledge on a particular topic, a systematic review tends to have a narrower focus. Journals may specialize in particular article types.
A few, such as Evidence-based Dentistry ISSN , publish third-party summaries of reviews and guidelines published elsewhere. This idea was inspired in part by several discussions here in New Page Patrol, but also on the village pumps, ANI, and the current ArbCom case about conduct in deletion discussions.
Please take a look. Does this look like something you as patrollers would use? Would you be inclined to use it instead of draftification? Instead of PROD? Instead of AFD? In conjunction with one or more of those? Do you think it would be workable, an improvement over what we have? Or would it be a mess? Would it get sufficient participation? Would you feel obligated to use it? Would you be confused as to when it is appropriate?
Right now it’s a very rough idea, and any feedback is welcome. One of the reviewers User:Bruxton has moved an article I was working on to draft space giving the reason as “I unable verify any of the references. I logged in to work on the article and saw it was moved again even after I did everything the previous reviewers asked for added at least 2 citations – I added 4, with inline references to a 5th study I haven’t been able to find yet.
The books are not all available in a publicly accessible way, is it then not allowed to use them in the article? I have read the information that was given me and I think the article is ready but it was moved again. IMO the article complies with wp:not and wp:notability and that is sufficient to exist in mainspace.
The inability to verify the given references is not a valid reason to say otherwise. That said, the article in such terrible shape that it really isn’t an article. Besides the “no lead” issue, the whole article is written like somebody just making some comments rather than presenting the topic. In short, the article does not cover the topic. It’s not mandatory by any means, but I’d also consider online versions of those sources – they DO exist.
There are links to Kieckhefer’s work here, for instance! No harm working on it in draftspace, as per my colleagues above. Hello all. These bugs have been around for years and are probably the most common bugs that cause people to get fed up with the toolbar and switch to Twinkle. I would encourage folks to try switching back to the Page Curation toolbar for deletion tagging, and let me know if the below bugs are gone, and let me know if I need to fix any additional bugs.
I have a patch in code review to hopefully fix the AFD bug mentioned above. New question. Has anybody had problems of any kind with tagging proposed deletion PROD since my patch last Thursday? If not I will close the ticket on Phabricator. As a reminder, the problem before was “empty reason”. If someone would like to comment on the notability of List of retracted paleontology papers that’d be welcome.
My current take would be that this ought to be draftified until at least two sources showing general topic notability are provided. When I first created this template, I added it to the top of all the NPP sub-pages above the navigation tabs. I could see it at a quick glance at any page I went to. It was moved without any discussion, because someone felt it “looked ugly” there according to a edit summary. Now it is different places – before the toc, after the toc, in the graph, in a text block.
This really bugs me because I have to hunt for it instead of it just being on top on all pages. Does anyone object if I move it back? The template just displays the backlog count in black text. The Pending Changes counter also displays a color-coded “level”:.
Originally, I didn’t think this would be useful for NPP. At Pending Changes, very high is over 18 and a few people can review the changes and get it back low relatively quickly – the level typically varies throughout the day; the colors probably do call attention to the backlog and cause some people to review PCs. If we implemented this here, the boundaries would need to be several thousand and it wouldn’t work the same way. Now, I think it might help.
After the May newsletter, the backlog dropped about 1, then flattened out. After the June newsletter, there was another 1, reduction and then flat. Then the July backlog drive led to a reduction of 4, in the first half of the month, and then it’s been mostly flat again. This shows that just keeping the backlog in people’s minds has an affect. Using these thresholds would be another way to do that. Some people might see we are rising and be motivated to do more reviews to keep from crossing into a higher category.
Spear-Shake Go ahead, vandalize How many Wikipedians does it take to change a lightbulb? How to put up a straight pole by pushing it at an angle How to vandalize correctly Is that even an essay? You don’t have to be mad to work here, but. About essays. Essay guide Value of essays Difference between policies, guidelines and essays Don’t cite essays as if they were policy Avoid writing redundant essays Finding an essay Quote your own essay. About policies and guidelines Policies Guidelines How to contribute to Wikipedia guidance Policy writing is hard.
Wikipedia help pages. Reference desks? Advice for young editors Avoiding common mistakes Etiquette Simplified Manual of Style Simplified rule-set “Ignore all rules” “The rules are principles” Style-tips Tip of the day Your first article article wizard.
Missing Manual Ask for help on your talk page? Wikipedia technical help. Wikipedia referencing. Verifiability No original research Biographies of living persons Reliable sources Medicine Citing sources Scientific citations.
Citation needed Find sources Combining sources Offline sources Referencing styles. Footnotes Punctuation and footnotes Shortened footnotes Nesting footnotes. Reference-tags Citations quick reference Introduction to referencing Referencing with citation templates Referencing without using templates Referencing dos and don’ts Citing Wikipedia. Cite link labels Citation tools Cite errors Cite messages Converting between references formats Reference display customization References and page numbers Guidance on source reviewing at FAC.
Wikipedia Library. Parenthetical referencing. Wikipedia templates. Wikipedia icons Discussion icons Comment icons Emoji. Wikipedia contents. Featured articles Today’s featured article Featured lists Featured pictures Featured topics Good articles Good topics. Academic disciplines Anniversaries today Countries and territories deaths this year Timelines decades, centuries, and millennia.
Orders, decorations, and medals of Wikipedia. Order of the Day Wikimedian of the Year also by country. Service awards Incremental service awards Administrative service awards. Merchandise giveaways. WikiProject Wikipedia Awards Wikipedia community portal. Categories : Help Wikipedia directories Wikipedia basic information.
Hidden categories: Help pages with short description. Namespaces Help page Talk. Use digital stickers to decorate your digital daily planner for iPad planning y It would be best if you used t What to do if you don’t like the digital cover in your notebook. Of course change There are 3 options for how you can do this. Choose a ready-made cover from free GoodNotes Covers templates.
Replace the notebook cover with Goodnotes copy paste lasso tool tutorial GoodNotes, unlike other note-taking apps on the iPad, has a universal tool for copying and pasting any part of notes, typed text, or photos – This is Lasso Tool Double Click on the Lasso What to do if you do not have enough space for notes in your pdf document for GoodNotes – read in this tutorial.
I know two ways to duplicate a page in a good notes 1 First Way In the This is my favorite digital daily planner for GoodNotes and Notability. Features of this planner in his grid pages. Planners has Monthly, Weekly and Daily pages.
Despite the diversity of digital mobile devices, do you still use the bulky, old-school paper planner? While you were jotting down notes on paper, the future is already present, offering convenient and effective solutions.
Going to be highly productive and paperless with your iPad and digital planner?
Best PDF markup and annotation apps for iPad and Apple Pencil | iMore
Pdf expert vs notability free Name Remember Me? Password Notices Tip Got Facebook? I will purchase an iPad Pro What I want to do is simply to edit PDFs scanned books mostly so that I can underline them, make small annotations on the margins and highlight certain paragraphs.
Which app would pdf expert vs notability free better for my needs? Last edited by devnull; at PM. Last edited by Marinolino; at AM. Notability is more of a note taking app. A very powerful one actually. It’s basically a advanced file manager with PDF functionality on top of it. Now as for pdf expert vs notability free simple PDF editor, the native Files app technically qualifies.
You can very easily make highlights, увидеть больше, and hand-written notes. Last edited by Dylrob; at PM. Originally Posted by Dylrob. Originally Posted by peaceridge. If GoodReader had a free trial, Pdf expert vs notability free try it. Given that I don’t know how it crops margins, Bookari allows for cropping margins and has a free version.
I can’t tell the difference pdf expert vs notability free the paid and free one and it’s not a very good ereader on IOS I like the Android version, thoughbut it works nicely cropping margins in pdf’s for me. I know a lot of PDF readers let you automatically crop out margins, but while this will account for pre-defined margins, it won’t work for scanned pages, nor will it let you crop out headers and footers. What I like about GoodReader is that it lets you manually define the area you want to crop http://replace.me/14430.txt. Originally Posted by Marinolino.
Zoom-locking should work on scans also, either on the scanned pages without ocr layer or with ocr layer pdf expert vs notability free the page image so that text can be highlighted, copied and searched. In Goodreader, newer Foxit etc. Thanks, Foxit has everything what I want! Although I see its one of those apps that uses a shared codebase for iOS and Android Last edited by Marinolino; at PM. PDF Viewer 2. Give Readdle Documents a try.
All times are GMT The time now is PM. Mark Forums Read. User Name. Remember Me? Tip Got Facebook? Thread Tools. Find More Posts by devnull. Find More Posts by Marinolino. Find More Posts by hapmas Здесь More Posts by Dylrob.
Find More Posts by peaceridge. Quote: Originally Posted by Dylrob I know a lot of PDF readers let you automatically crop out margins, but while this will account for pre-defined margins, it won’t work for scanned pages, nor will it let you crop out headers and footers.
Quote: Originally Posted by Marinolino Zoom-locking should work on scans also, either on the scanned pages without ocr layer or with ocr layer behind the page image so that text can be highlighted, copied and searched. Find More Posts by rfog. Find More Posts by jasjones Find More Posts by johnnyb. Similar Threads.
How to highlight and annotate text from html files on Kobo reader? Can’t annotate PDFs in Kindle? You could!
Classic Annotate PDFs.