0

I want to use biblatex for my bibliogrphy, but I don't like some things in the style of the entries of the bibliography.

My minimal working example:

Database biblio.bib

@article{example,
    author  =   {Author},
    title   =   {Title},
    journal =   {Journal},
    year    =   {2018}
}

Main file:

\documentclass{article}

\usepackage[backend=biber,style=alphabetic]{biblatex}
\addbibresource{biblio.bib}

\begin{document}
    I want to cite \cite{example}.

    \printbibliography
\end{document}

If I run this, the article is cited as

[Aut18] Author. "Title". In: Journal (2018)

I would like to avoid the "In:" and have it cited as

[Aut18] Author. "Title". Journal (2018)

Moreover, if I remove the year and use

@article{example,
    author  =   {Author},
    title   =   {Title},
    journal =   {Journal}
}

then I get

[Aut18] Author. "Title". In: Journal ()

I would like to avoid the empty brackets as well, if possible. Is there a pre-implemented way to do these things? If not, how can I do it?

Daniel Robert-Nicoud
  • 1,035
  • As far as I know, some bibliography entries (and depended on the style too) use year as a mandatory entry... but other's doesn't... Also there are many kinds of entries for @article... many for book... etc. So, the easy way is to change the bib file replacing for example journal by publisher and article by book. – koleygr Jan 18 '18 at 23:41
  • 3
    For the "in:" part of you question this is probably of use: https://tex.stackexchange.com/a/10686/105447. – gusbrs Jan 19 '18 at 01:01
  • And koleygr is correct, biblatex's documentation states for the article entrytype: "Required fields: author, title, journaltitle, year/date". – gusbrs Jan 19 '18 at 01:19
  • 3
    Since the year is required by all styles I'm aware of - and not just by Biblatex's implementation of styles - why don't you have this information in the entry? You should have at least: author, title, journal, volume, pages and year, but preferably also number. Just the name of the journal makes it much more difficult for somebody to find the article you're citing. With year, volume, number and pages it is generally straightforward. – cfr Jan 19 '18 at 02:58
  • @cfr I am writing my PhD thesis, and I want to refer to an article in collaboration with a coauthor which is in one of the first stages of writing. Therefore, I don't have a "year" or "journal" yet (even though the year will almost certainly be 2018). Also, I'm referencing preprints (which is common in my field - mathematics - since virtually all preprints are put on arXiv.org) which, by definition, don't have a "journal" yet. – Daniel Robert-Nicoud Jan 19 '18 at 08:49
  • 3
    Daniel, biblatex offers a pubstate field, which have as preset possibilities inpreparation, submitted, forthcoming, inpress, prepublished. It also offers supports for some eprints, arXiv prominently among them. But the @article entrytype is understood within it as something which is indeed published, it is then a matter of choosing the right entrytype for your case. Perhaps a look at the biblatex documentation could help. – gusbrs Jan 19 '18 at 09:19
  • Valid arguments in the comments above. Instead of 'article', you could use whatever is recommended for manuscripts or unpublished work. Search the biblatex documentation for terms like these and the ones you were given above. I'm positive you will find what you need and maybe learn a thing or two about the... er... 'proper' way to go about the matter of what should be in a ref list. Happy sciencing! – thymaro Jan 19 '18 at 18:05
  • That's fine and happens in all fields, I guess, to different degrees. As @gusbrs says, you just need to pick the correct entry type and the right fields within the entry. If you're referring specifically to something on arXiv.org, there are specific ways of dealing with that, as mentioned above. These do have dates - they just aren't the dates of the final publication. You generally need to specify the eprintclass, as well as the eprint and eprinttype for these entries, because of the way the URLs for arxiv sources need to be constructed. (At least, my entries generally have these.) – cfr Jan 20 '18 at 01:32
  • @gusbrs I have added a community wiki answer to compile all the comments here. Feel free to edit. If you'd rather write an answer of your own, please do so. I'll then vote to delete the CW answer. – moewe Mar 15 '18 at 07:12
  • @cfr I have added a community wiki answer to compile all the comments here. Feel free to edit. If you'd rather write an answer of your own, please do so. I'll then vote to delete the CW answer. – moewe Mar 15 '18 at 07:12
  • @koleygr I have added a community wiki answer to compile all the comments here. Feel free to edit. If you'd rather write an answer of your own, please do so. I'll then vote to delete the CW answer. – moewe Mar 15 '18 at 07:12
  • @thymaro I have added a community wiki answer to compile all the comments here. Feel free to edit. If you'd rather write an answer of your own, please do so. I'll then vote to delete the CW answer. – moewe Mar 15 '18 at 07:12

1 Answers1

1

It is easily possible to remove the "in:" either for all entry types or for @article, see Suppress "In:" biblatex.

Your second point about the empty brackets is more subtle. The biblatex documentation lists date/year among the required fields for @article. While it is sometimes possible to omit some required fields I don't think this is acceptable here. As discussed elsewhere (Format of @article without journal title field in biblatex bibliography entries) @article is only appropriate for articles that were actually published in a journal. As such they will always have a journal field, they will almost always have a volume field, and they will always have a year/date (i.e. the date the journal volume was published).

If you want to refer to arXiv preprints that were not yet published in a journal, don't use @article - use @online instead.

In the comments you talked about citing a paper that is still in the making. If you really must cite it even though it has never been made publicly accessible up to now (how will anybody get hold of it, if it is not published?) you can use @unpublished since that is what it is. If you have already put it on a preprint server or your website, then cite it as @online.

moewe
  • 175,683
  • Huh... I didn't even know there was an unpublished doc cat. – thymaro Mar 15 '18 at 07:18
  • @thymaro It's a bit of a weird one, but some people have to cite "[a] work with an author and a title which has not been formally published, such as a manuscript or the script of a talk." (quote from the docs about @unpublished). – moewe Mar 15 '18 at 07:21
  • @moewe, the answer looks great to me. And, for the record, depending on the area, unpublished sources are pretty common. For example, archival sources are typically unpublished. In a typical work of mine a large fraction (1/3-1/2?) of the individual citation items are somehow "unpublished", and others even if published are so rare they will hardly be reachable to most. If these are hard to get, it is unfortunate, they are still the sources and as such, must be cited/referenced. – gusbrs Mar 15 '18 at 12:45
  • I'm not sure it is appropriate to treat arXiv sources as unpublished. Is this usual? @gusbrs I think that's a bit different: those aren't typically sources 'in the making', but just sources which are of the permanently unpublished kind (unless somebody else compiles them or something, but the original sources would still be essentially unpublished). – cfr Mar 16 '18 at 00:55
  • @cfr, sure, I meant there are "unpublished" sources in general. There's no claim that this is the best entrytype to the OP's case. I guess I'm just one of the "some weird people" and felt the need to explain myself on behalf of our kind. ;) – gusbrs Mar 16 '18 at 01:00
  • @gusbrs Oh, I see. I agree it is not at all weird. I don't work with these kinds of sources myself, but I certainly have friends and colleagues who make extensive use of them. I think it is pretty research-area specific. Perhaps it seems 'weird' to people from STEM backgrounds, but, if so, I assume that's just lack of familiarity with research methods in relevant research areas in other disciplines. – cfr Mar 16 '18 at 01:14
  • @cfr Sorry if I was unclear. I think for arXiv papers that were not published in a journal normally @online is the best choice (even if the paper was published in a journal @article is only appropriate if there is no difference between the journal and arXiv version.) The answer is CW, so if you think it is unclear at the moment, please feel free to improve it. – moewe Mar 16 '18 at 05:45