I am using biblatex/biber to typeset the bibliography for my thesis. For one particular reference where I am the joint first author, my PhD examiners have requested that I should expressly indicate this using appropriate markup that makes this fact unambiguous to readers.
Let's say. we have a thesis.bib file with the relevant entry.
@article{Doe2018,
author = {Doe, John and Bloggs, Joe and Supervisor, Nice},
journal = {Journal of Pure Awesomeness},
month = {jun},
pages = {507--514},
publisher = {DodgyPublisher},
title = {{The next big breakthrough in science}},
volume = {17},
year = {2018}
}
In this case, both John Doe and Joe Bloggs have been designated as the joint first authors. The PDF of the published article and the publisher's HTML landing page for the article identifies this clearly. The internal examiner and additionally the supervisor (also a co-author/last author on the aforementioned article) are aware that the contribution from both authors is split equally and therefore, neither one can claim full credit in the thesis.
So the question is, in the bibliography, how can this entry be specially marked e.g. with underlines for the two first author names? Following the bibliography entry formatted according to whichever style being used (barring the newly introduced underlines), the following sentence should be appended - "The underlined authors are joint first authors and contributed equally to this work".
Can we make up a custom bibliography command for this, given that we are using the highly flexible biber/biblatex combo?
Here is a minimal non-working example. The \customcite command does not yet exist, but indicated what is required.
\documentclass[a4paper]{book}
\usepackage[backend=biber, style=numeric-comp, sorting=none, citestyle=numeric-comp, maxbibnames=50, url=true, doi=true, eprint=false, backref=true, backrefstyle=three]{biblatex}
\usepackage{csquotes}
\addbibresource{thesis.bib}
\begin{document}
Blah blah \dots as seen in the research article published~\customcite{Doe2018}.
\printbibliography
\end{document}



\mkbibnamecomplete. There is at least one theoretical technical difficulties with this though, as the argument of\mkbibnamecompletewould have to be slightly more complicated than that of the other\mkbibname...macros. That should not be an issue for most applications, but could be for really complicated macros like underlining commands. Secondly changes like this have the potential to break backwards compatibility, though again the chances are small. – moewe Jan 04 '19 at 22:46\mkbibcompletename, not\mkbibnamecomplete– kwsp Jun 09 '23 at 01:40