To parse BibTeX format files, Biber uses a C library called "btparse" which is, for all intents and purposes, 99.9% compatible with BibTeX. So, You should rarely have problem using Biber as a drop-in replacement for BibTeX. As mentioned by others, the issue is rather the slightly different data model which biblatex
has compared with the data model in BibTeX.
So, your question really relates to the difference in data models between plain BibTeX and BibLaTeX, regardless of whether you are using Biber as the biblatex
backend. Be aware that in the future, around BibLaTeX 2.x, BibTeX will no longer be supported as a biblatex
backend as it has too many limitations. Of course BibTeX format data files will always be supported.
The more important question is, as you mention, what the advantages of Biber might be even if you are not using any of the biblatex
data model specifics. Here are some advantages of Biber in this respect (you can get an idea by searching for the string "Biber only" in the biblatex
manual), omitting the features which require data source changes:
- Support of data sources other than
.bib
(currently RIS, Zotero RDF/XML, Endnote XML)
- Support for remote data sources (
.bib
files available via ftp or http)
- Support of other output formats (in 0.9.8 it will support GraphViz .dot output for
data visualisation and conversion to the planned biblateXML format)
- Full Unicode 6.0 support (including file names and citation keys)
- A sorting mechanism which I think is probably as good or better than any commercial
product - full Unicode, multi-field, per-field case and direction, CLDR aware and
completely user configurable. BibTeX doesn't come close in this regard.
- Automatic name and name list disambiguation. I think this is quite an impressive feature.
See section 4.11.4 of the
biblatex
manual for a very good explanation of this with examples.
- Completely customisable crossref inheritance rules. BibTeX has a very basic static rule
only.
- Automatic encoding and decoding, including UTF-8 <-> LaTeX macros
- Very flexible configuration file "sourcemap" option which can be used to change the
.bib
data as it is read by Biber, without changing the actual data source itself. You
can use this to do all sorts of things like drop certain fields, add fields,
conditionally drop/add fields, change fields using full Perl 5.14 regular expressions
(see Biber manual section 3.1.2).
This last feature is particularly interesting for you as you can potentially map your pure BibTeX .bib
files into the biblatex
model on the fly as Biber reads them but without altering the files. It's also very useful for dropping fields like abstract
which often cause trouble due to LaTeX reserved characters.
There are also some other features implemented in Biber which are available in BibLaTeX 2.x:
- Customisable labels
- Multiple bibliographies in the same refsection with their own sorting/filtering
- "Related" entries - a general solution to the issue of all these "reprinted as",
"translated as" etc. requirements.
I forgot to mention that Biber automatically applies the BibLaTeX field and entrytype mappings (address -> location etc.) mentioned in the documentation. It does this by implementing some driver-level source mappings (see \DeclareSourcemap
and its variants in the biblatex documentation).
If you had posted a complete minimal example, you probably would've had a solution many hours ago. And, needless to say, if this solution doesn't work for you, you really need to post a similar example of your own that demonstrates the problem.
At any rate, this works for me:
\documentclass[12pt]{article}
\usepackage{filecontents}
\begin{filecontents*}{example.bib}
@book{smith2000,
author = {Smith, John},
title = {A Really, Really, Really Long Book Title So the Whole Entry Is More than One Line Long},
address = {City},
publisher = {Some Publisher},
year = 2000
}
\end{filecontents*}
\usepackage{natbib}
% \usepackage[normalbib]{savetrees}% older versions
\usepackage[bibliography=normal]{savetrees}% version 2.0 (2011/05/14)
\usepackage{lipsum}
\begin{document}
\cite{smith2000}
\lipsum[1]
\bibliographystyle{plainnat}
\bibliography{example}
\end{document}
In other words, savetrees
allows you to set various options that determine how many trees you're going to save. In this case, the bibliography=normal
option prevents savetrees
from modifying the bibliography formatting.
Best Answer
Avoid going against the express advice of the venue to which you want to submit.
The guidelines from https://www.mdpi.com/authors/references mentioned in the question are
Knowing the differences between
biblatex
and BibTeX for the citation workflow (see Biblatex: submitting to a journal) that already strongly suggestsbiblatex
is out (even if you use BibTeX instead of Biber as backend).A search for MDPI LaTeX template leads to https://www.mdpi.com/authors/latex where one can download a
.zip
file containingtemplate.tex
showcasing manualthebibliography
and BibTeX, but notbiblatex
.Furthermore
mdpi.cls
loadsnatbib
and uses\bibliographystyle
, and is therefore completely incompatible withbiblatex
.On the technical side it might be possible to patch the
mdpi.cls
class in such a way that it can be used withbiblatex
even though it loadsnatbib
. But that requires dangerous manual interventions, see Is it possible to load biblatex with a class that has already loaded natbib?, biblatex instead of natbib in elsarticle, how?, How to use biblatex with Wiley templates?, elsarticle.cls and multiple bibliographies. And it is very doubtful that the journal will be happy with the required changes to their workflow should you submit withbiblatex
.I'd like to echo Paul Stanley's comment. For most intents and purposes BibTeX (which has been stable for years) works absolutely fine. There is some fancy stuff only
biblatex
can do (or at least, can do easily), but in the STEM fields BibTeX still provides almost everything people need. The relative stability of BibTeX and its workflow mean that BibTeX is often much more compatible across systems thanbiblatex
, which is actively being developed.