8

I am using a .bst for the bibliography in my thesis; the .bst that I am using, I think, was Chicago style originally. I am also using the natbib package. Currently, when I use citation, "et al." appears normally in the text. What should I do to emphasize "et al."?

I am assuming that it is related to the functions of the names in .bst file which are: FUNCTION {format.names} or FUNCTION {format.names.ed} or FUNCTION {format.full.names}, and therefore, I tried to put emphasize before "et al." or before "other" in these name's functions but none is working. I also went through the previous questions about the same issue here, nevertheless, I couldn't find an answer.

Please help.

Corentin
  • 9,981
Mara
  • 631
  • Which style (.bst file) are you using? – Gonzalo Medina Jul 20 '12 at 23:16
  • I think, originally, was Chicago style. – Mara Jul 20 '12 at 23:29
  • 2
    Hmm... hard to give exact advise if you are not sure about the precise style. You can try replacing the string " et~al." with "{\em et~al.}" in a local renamed copy of the .bst file. – Gonzalo Medina Jul 21 '12 at 00:10
  • The previous comment didn't help because I have already done that as I said in my question! I don't think the functions have been modified in the style I am using, so you can assume that the style is Chicago. What you would do in this case? – Mara Jul 21 '12 at 01:17
  • The file chicago.bst dates back to 1992. If this is really the file you're working with, there should be eight [8] instances of the string " et~al.". (Note the presence of the tilde.) Replace every one of these instances with " {\em et~al.}" as per @GonzaloMedina's earlier suggestion, and save the file under a new name, say, mymara.bst. Update the TeX filename database if necessary, and start using the modified bibliography style file. – Mico Jul 21 '12 at 01:26
  • I have already replaced them all in the file with {\em et al.}, and I have already done what you suggested up. Nothing has been changed! Is there any other suggestion? Is it something has to do with the "other" in these functions? – Mara Jul 21 '12 at 01:37
  • 1
    I can confirm that my suggestion (reinforced by @Mico) works if you are really using chicago.bst. Can you please upload elsewhere (pastebin, for example)the actual .bst file you're working with? – Gonzalo Medina Jul 21 '12 at 01:42
  • I have done the emphasizing. I was just about posting the file on pastebin when I found that I have missed one et al when I was trying all yesterday. I have already got it if not for the missing part, I wondered why it didn't work and so that I post my question. Now I have made sure that the style I am using is definitely Chicago, confirmed by what I have done and what you have suggested. Thanks for both of you Gonzalo and Mico. Sorry for disturbing! – Mara Jul 21 '12 at 02:11
  • Usually, we don't put a greeting or a "thank you" in our posts. While this might seem strange at first, it is not a sign of lack of politeness, but rather part of our trying to keep everything very concise. Accepting and upvoting answers is the preferred way here to say "thank you" to users who helped you. – Claudio Fiandrino Mar 18 '13 at 16:41
  • 2
    I think it is important to mention that "et al." should not be italicized if you follow the Chicago style as the manual stipulates: Latin and italics: "et al." is not italicized or underlined (van Leunen, p. 27: "Write it without either underlining or italics."; Chicago Manual of Style 7.56: "Commonly used Latin words and abbreviations should not be italicized. ibid, et al., ca., passim." [and later, 6.44: "Note that 'e.g.' and 'i.e.' are not italicized."]). – ATN Mar 18 '13 at 16:19

1 Answers1

4

The answer is: replace every single "et al." and "et~al." in the .bst file with 

\emph{et al.}

Change the name of your .bst file. Run LaTeX and BibTeX.

egreg
  • 1,121,712
Mara
  • 631
  • 1
    I've corrected the substitution string: \em is not a command taking arguments. – egreg Jul 23 '12 at 06:50
  • dear egreg, but it was already working with the command \em. what is the difference? – Mara Jul 26 '12 at 01:33
  • 5
    You wrote {\em{et al.}}. 1. \em is not a command with arguments; 2. using \emph{text} is recommended over {\em text} because the former automatically adds the italic correction when necessary. – egreg Jul 26 '12 at 08:13
  • 1
    Surely \textit would be more correct than \emph? This is explicitly visual formatting, i.e. our desire is for this text to be in italics, rather than simply wanting it emphasised. – Flyto Feb 24 '15 at 16:08