2

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022053118303144?via%3Dihub

Its format is a little bit unusual: Journal of Economic Theory 199 (2022) 105075

Edit: Sorry for the confusion caused by my original post. I am writing an article, and want to cite this paper. I am not submitting to this journal.

I say it is weird because usually the code for reference is written as

@article{blabla,
  title={Blabla},
  author={Blabla},
  journal={Blabla},
 volume={100},
  number={1},
  pages={1111-2222},
 year={2022}
}

But journal of economic theory has this "105075" and no range of pages. I was wondering how I should write the above code to make it shown as "Journal of Economic Theory 199 (2022) 105075"

Ypbor
  • 399
  • Is this for a submission yourself, or just to match it? I've answered for the former case, might be worth clarifying in your question if the latter – Steve Jun 05 '22 at 19:32
  • Please clarify what you mean by the "format is a little bit unusual". Since the JET is an Elsevier-stable journal, I'd consider using the elsarticle-harv bibliography style to format the bibliographic entries. – Mico Jun 05 '22 at 19:35
  • 1
    Sorry my original post was confusing. I edited it to clarify my question. – Ypbor Jun 05 '22 at 19:50
  • I would set volume=199, number=105075, and doi=https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jet.2020.105075 and omit the pages field. I trust you'll be able to figure out the author, title, journal, and year fields. – Mico Jun 05 '22 at 20:01
  • @Mico Then in the reference it is shown as "Journal of Economic Theory 199 (105075)". I am not sure whether it is right... – Ypbor Jun 05 '22 at 20:10
  • @Ypbor - What's shown and how it's formatted depends entirely on the bibliography style you employ. For instance, if you used the elsarticle-harv bibliography style, you'd get the doi field, but the number field would be omitted entirely. – Mico Jun 05 '22 at 20:21
  • 1
    Related: https://tex.stackexchange.com/q/445888/35864. There is no consensus here across styles and so generally speaking you have to try a few things and see how the come out. With some styles pages will work well enough, with others it won't. Many .bst styles (certainly the standard styles after which most other styles are modelled to some degree) were written before online-only/non-print journals and their "article number" became a thing. – moewe Jun 05 '22 at 20:42

1 Answers1

1

The "cite: export citation to Bibtex" has pages = {105075}, so I'd be tempted to go with that.

The full bibtex (without the abstract field) is:

@article{LEVY2022105075,
title = {Combining forecasts in the presence of ambiguity over correlation structures},
journal = {Journal of Economic Theory},
volume = {199},
pages = {105075},
year = {2022},
note = {Symposium Issue on Ambiguity, Robustness, and Model Uncertainty},
issn = {0022-0531},
doi = {https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jet.2020.105075},
url = {https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022053118303144},
author = {Gilat Levy and Ronny Razin},
keywords = {Correlation neglect, Ambiguity, Point-wise mutual information}
}
Steve
  • 281
  • 1
    I wouldn't rely on these automatically generated .bib files for the finder points of .bib file semantics. Many of these exported .bib files are not up to best practices (see https://tex.stackexchange.com/q/386053/35864) and especially for more complex questions like this it is not clear that there even is a consensus across styles (the .bib file syntax is fixed and well known, the semantics can vary between styles even though a core set of fields and types is generally fairly stable). – moewe Jun 05 '22 at 20:47
  • 1
    Case in point: For most styles that I know doi = {https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jet.2020.105075}, would not be best practice. Styles that support a dedicated DOI field generally assume that the field contains the bare DOI and not the link-y bit (https://doi.org/). So one would say doi = {10.1016/j.jet.2020.105075}, instead. – moewe Jun 05 '22 at 20:53