How to Convert Scientific Database Files for Screening Tools
If you keep manually converting PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, Embase, EndNote, or Zotero exports before screening, the real problem is usually the file format and metadata structure, not the search itself.
Why Researchers End Up Converting Files by Hand
- Different databases use different field names for title, abstract, DOI, authors, and source.
- Some exports include citations but omit abstracts unless you explicitly choose Full Record, Abstract, or a similar option.
- CSV files may contain odd encodings, BOM-prefixed headers, or source-specific columns.
- Tagged exports such as PubMed NBIB, Web of Science CIW, BibTeX, and EndNote ENW are not handled the same way by every screening tool.
- As a result, researchers often rename columns, re-save encodings, or convert one citation format into another just to start screening.
The Practical Rule
If You Need to Use Another Screening Tool
- Start with RIS with abstracts where available.
- For PubMed, prefer .nbib over copied citation text.
- For Web of Science, export Full Record.
- For CSV, make sure the file contains usable title and abstract columns before import.
- If a tool still rejects the file, the problem is usually the import parser or column expectations.
If You Want to Skip Conversion Work
Lumina accepts the export files researchers actually download from scientific databases: RIS, NBIB, CSV, BibTeX, Web of Science tagged text, and EndNote files.
Which Files Usually Need Conversion?
PubMed exports
NBIB is usually cleaner than manually copied citations. CSV can work, but only if the title and abstract fields survive the export.
Scopus and Embase CSV exports
These often need field-name cleanup in other tools. RIS with abstracts is usually safer.
Web of Science exports
Summary-level exports often miss abstracts. Use RIS or CIW with Full Record.
Reference manager exports
BibTeX and EndNote tagged files can be structurally correct but still require manual conversion in tools with narrow import support.
A Common Example: ASReview
One example of this broader problem is ASReview. Researchers often discover that a scientific database export still needs manual cleanup before ASReview will use the file cleanly.
The issue is not specific to ASReview alone. It is the same underlying conversion problem many researchers hit whenever a screening tool expects a narrower file structure than the databases actually export.
When Manual Conversion Becomes a Workflow Cost
If you have already spent time fixing column names, merging exports, re-saving CSV encodings, or converting citation files just to preserve titles and abstracts, that is a real bottleneck in your review workflow.
Lumina is useful here because it handles the common scientific export formats directly and lets you import the files researchers already receive from PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, Embase, EndNote, Zotero, and publisher sites.
That means less time on file conversion and more time screening papers.
Stop Converting Files by Hand
Upload your database exports directly into Lumina and start screening without the usual RIS, CSV, or metadata cleanup step.
Want more import and screening guides?
Subscribe for practical tips on database exports, AI screening workflows, and faster systematic review setup.
No spam, just resources to speed up your research.