0

I have the following two files, the first using bibtex:

\documentclass{article}

\begin{filecontents}[overwrite]{\jobname.bib}
    @article{art,
      author = {Article Author},
      title = {Article Title},
      journal = {Journal},
      volume = {2},
      year = {Year},
    },
    @book{book,
      author = {Book Author},
      title = {Book Title},
      volume = {2},
      publisher = {Publisher},
      year = {Year},
    }
\end{filecontents}


\begin{document}


\nocite{*}
\bibliographystyle{plain}
\bibliography{\jobname}


\end{document}

and the second using biblatex:

\documentclass{article}

\usepackage{biblatex}


\begin{filecontents}[overwrite]{\jobname.bib}
    @article{art,
      author = {Article Author},
      title = {Article Title},
      journal = {Journal},
      volume = {2},
      year = {Year},
    },
    @book{book,
      author = {Book Author},
      title = {Book Title},
      volume = {2},
      publisher = {Publisher},
      year = {Year},
    }
\end{filecontents}


\bibliography{\jobname}


\begin{document}


\nocite{*}
\printbibliography


\end{document}

Using the first file (bibtex), the following is outputted:

enter image description here

While the second (biblatex) outputs:

enter image description here

How can I make the first look like the second? I know that there are custom .bst files, would I need to use one of those, or is there already one made for this purpose?

btshepard
  • 680
  • I am not aware of a BibTeX style that emulates the biblatex standard styles (some of whose style decisions are not very well liked). makebst (https://tex.stackexchange.com/q/96174/35864) would be the obvious first point of entry to try and get something similar. – moewe Jan 12 '22 at 07:17
  • 1
    But I'm curious: Why do you want the biblatex output, but don't want to use biblatex? Often when people can't use biblatex for external reasons, these external reasons come with their own BibTeX style files (I'm thinking university/publisher/journal templates). – moewe Jan 12 '22 at 07:19
  • The main reason that I don't like using biblatex is because it significantly increases the compilation time. – btshepard Jan 12 '22 at 16:26
  • It is true that Biber (the default biblatex backend) is significantly slower than BibTeX, but fortunately, you don't have to run Biber every time you compile your document. You only need to call it (roughly speaking) when something about your citations changes. (Tools like latexmk are great at automating these things and will run Biber only when required.) There is a performance hit from loading and using the biblatex package as well (when compared to classical BibTeX), but that is comparably small especially on modern hardware. – moewe Jan 12 '22 at 16:58

0 Answers0