[Tex/LaTex] uniquelist=false for nature style biblatex

biblatex

I need to use the uniquelist=false in nature style biblatex, so far the citation works fine, by naming each citation 2011a and 2011b, however, it does not appear the same in the references. here, the readers can't differentiate which one is 2011a or 2011b.

How do i make the references appear with label the same as cited in the article?

\documentclass{article}

\usepackage[style=nature,
  intitle   =true,
  citestyle =authoryear,
  backend   =biber,
  natbib    =true,
  uniquename=false,
  uniquelist=false,
  date      =year,
  url       =false,
  doi       =false,
  isbn      =false,
  mincitenames=1,
  maxcitenames=2]{biblatex}

\usepackage{filecontents}

\begin{filecontents}{\jobname.bib}
@misc{ABC01,
  author = {Author, A. and Buthor, B. and C},
  year = {2001},
  title = {Alpha},
}
@misc{ADE01,
  author = {Author, A. and Duthor, D. and E},
  year = {2001},
  title = {And now for something completely different},
}
\end{filecontents}

\addbibresource{\jobname.bib}

\begin{document}
Some text \autocite{ABC01}.

Some text \autocite{ADE01}.

\printbibliography
\end{document}

Best Answer

biblatex allows you to specify a bibstyle and a citestyle independently of each other. Most styles (certainly all standard styles and most contributed styles) are written in a way that you can mix and match bibstyle and citestyle as you please. Some (contributed) styles may have interdependencies between .bbx (bibstyle) and .cbx (citestyle) that require they be used together.

Technically, the combination

style=nature,
citestyle=authoryear,

which is basically

bibstyle=nature,
citestyle=authoryear,

works OK. There are no errors.

But not all combinations of bibliography and citation style make sense.

nature is a numeric style, which means that citations are identified with numbers in the text and in the bibliography. authoryear does not use plain numbers to identify citations and so the numbers of numeric are kept hanging around in the bibliography list for no apparent purpose. They have no connection to anything else in the document and only serve to confuse your readers.

On the other hand, authoryear identifies citations with author and year. If there are several works with the same author-year combination, the extradate letter is added to disambiguate. To find a citation in the bibliography, the author and year must be prominently displayed in the bibliography list. But a numeric bibliography puts huge emphasis on the number in front of the items. Scanning for author and year at the beginning and end of an entry when the numeric label steals the limelight seems to require more mental capacity in this layout than in the standard authoryear bibliography style where thanks to hanging indentation the names are more prominent and the year follows the name directly. Furthermore, the disambiguation letter must be present. Numeric bibliographies have no use for that letter and normally don't print it.

I think this demonstrates that a mixture of a numeric bibliography and author-year citation style does not really work well out of the box. edit: I just realised I already said this in an answer to an earlier question of yours (Inbook citation not showing the section title), so you probably do not want to hear it, but I still think it was worth repeating and elaborating for other people.

If you must have this combination I suggest you remove all mentions of the numeric labels and modify the date macro to print the extradate information. You also need to make sure that the sorting of the bibliography is useful for an authoryear citation style (i.e. sorting=nyt; that was missing in the earlier version of the answer, thanks to @gusbrs for pointing that out).

\documentclass{article}

\usepackage[
  bibstyle=nature,
  intitle=true,
  citestyle=authoryear,
  sorting=nyt,
  backend=biber,
  labelnumber=false,
  uniquename=false,
  uniquelist=false,
  mincitenames=1,
  maxcitenames=2]{biblatex}

\defbibenvironment{bibliography}
  {\list
     {}
     {\setlength{\leftmargin}{\bibhang}%
      \setlength{\itemindent}{-\leftmargin}%
      \setlength{\itemsep}{\bibitemsep}%
      \setlength{\parsep}{\bibparsep}}}
  {\endlist}
  {\item}

\renewbibmacro*{date}{\printdateextra}

\DeclareLabeldate{%
  \field{date}
  \field{year}
  \literal{nodate}
}

\usepackage{filecontents}
\begin{filecontents}{\jobname.bib}
@misc{ABC01,
  author = {Author, A. and Buthor, B. and C},
  year = {2001},
  title = {Alpha},
}
@misc{ADE01,
  author = {Author, A. and Duthor, D. and E},
  year = {2001},
  title = {And now for something completely different},
}
\end{filecontents}
\addbibresource{\jobname.bib}

\begin{document}
Some text \autocite{ABC01}.

Some text \autocite{ADE01}.

\printbibliography
\end{document}

Additionally you may or may not want to make sure that bibliography and citations show the same number of authors, that can be done with maxnames=2, minnames=1.

Related Solutions

[Tex/LaTex] Adapting an existing biblatex style in order to imitate Springer’s author-year reference list rules for authors

There's a lot of questions here. Maybe some that are rather subjective. Rather than produce an essay I'll try to answer your questions.

Yes, the process is handcrafted, if you won't accept or live with one of the standard or common styles, or at least if you need to make more than a few changes to them. With respect, the reason is clear once you look at your own question. You have found a style you like, but you would like a few little things changed: a full stop after some parentheses, and the book name. Fortunately or unfortunately, everyone has these little quirks: corner cases, inconsistencies, favourite little points. This is life. And in the end that means handcrafting. A lot can be done by changing macros, so that the rough work is done quickly. But it's these "little things" that take time.

Sometimes this becomes a bit frustrating, as one wonders whether this or that feature of a citation style is really required. All of them more-or-less convey the same information, which is really part of the problem: because then we have room for endless debate on matters of taste, about which people, being people, can sometimes feel strongly. To some extent the degree to which your style has to be handcrafted depends on your own ability to live with something that isn't quite exactly what you want. If you could resign yourself to using, say APA or Chicago style, we have exactly what you need. You are driven to bespoke by an exquisite refusal to be seen wearing something off-the-peg: as is your prerogative.

Bibtex of course managed the semi-homemade approach via makebst. But it's a much simpler system: because of the complexity of biblatex, I doubt such a system is viable. At any rate it would be a huge amount of work, and doesn't exist. The nearest biblatex comes to that is actually the highly configurable styles like the DW styles; but they are not really focussed on your author/year system.
In terms of styles to look at, there are two fairly mature styles that are focussed on author-year citations: biblatex-chicago (which you load as a package of its own) in its authordate version, and biblatex-apa. The former is quite a way from what you want. The latter is pretty close, actually, to your format (though with more periods and punctuation than you like), but might be a good starting point for customization. This does not "meet your needs" if you mean "look exactly as you want your style to look", but it is a totally competent modern citation style which conforms very closely to an established style-guide.
For modification, I'd always start with a standard style (unless it's really a question of tiny tweaks). In your case, I'd probably work from authoryear (or one of its close variants -- though before that I'd look at the code for APA to see if it might be a closer fit.
There is no perfect single source. My own experience, beyond the questions you have identified, is that one got most help from the biblatex documentation, but sometimes even more from the source code, especially biblatex.def and standard.bbx, which you need to keep at hand. They provide the copious examples that the technical documentation rather lacks.

A few suggestions:

Please, please, see if you can't bring yourself to use a style like APA or Chicago, with minimal modification (e.g. to remove unnecessary periods after initials and the like). This would be very much simpler. If you can't, and you are determined to roll your own ...
Ask yourself why you are using biblatex. I'm a huge fan of it, because in my field it is essential: you simply cannot have adequate legal bibliographies with bibtex. You may need it for all sorts of reasons. But if you are not going to need its advanced features, but aim for nothing that bibtex could not do, but are determined on a bespoke approach, then going the makebst route might be better for you. (Or modifying the Springer .bst files which are, I think, available.)
If the answer to those questions is that you are going to use biblatex but produce your own style then
- start with the book, article, inbook and incollection drivers, in that order. Once you've got them, you are more than half way there usually.
- when tackling the drivers, use a variety of test data that you are confident about (i.e. you are sure how it should end up being printed). Change only a bit at a time. Make sure to test with unexpected data too.
- test very frequently. It's horribly easy to introduce some annoying little error like an extra space somewhere, which can be hell to track down later.
- sort out the punctuation (\newunitpunct and friends) as the first thing you do. Spend some time studying the documentation's quite lengthy description of the punctuation system, which is cunning and useful, but not immediately intuitive.
- encapsulate as much as you can so that you get repeatable units: aim for drivers which are simply a succession of \printfield, \newunit, \newblock and \usebibmacro, without any heavy logic or formatting built in. Use \bibmacros to control logic, and the various \format...ing directives to deal with formatting and typography.
- you are going to need to revise (not, of course, edit: make a new alternative) at least one .lbx file because they are stuffed full of full stops after abbreviations.
- try to build a style which will precisely follow the Springer one, and then add your tweaks (perhaps with an option), so that you can make the style available to others.

[Tex/LaTex] biblatex messing up citation entry with lots of authors

This problem is due to biblatex-apa's (apa.bbx's) apaauthor name format; you might want to notify the author of this small bug.

The string and others in the author list sets ifmorenames to true. apaauthor checks for this case whenever a name is printed, not just at the very end of the list; consequently it prints the andothers string ("et al.") after each name.

The fix is to add the following lines to your preamble.

\DeclareNameFormat{apaauthor}{%
  \ifthenelse{\value{listcount}=\maxprtauth\AND\value{listcount}<\value{listtotal}}
    {\addcomma\addspace\ldots\addspace}
    {\ifthenelse{\value{listcount}>\maxprtauth\AND\value{listcount}<\value{listtotal}}
      {}
      {\ifthenelse{\iffieldequalstr{doubtfulauthor}{true}}
        {\mkbibbrackets{\usebibmacro{name:apa:last-first}{#1}{#3}{#4}{#5}{#7}?}}
        {\usebibmacro{name:apa:last-first}{#1}{#3}{#4}{#5}{#7}}}}%
  \ifthenelse{\value{listcount}=\value{listtotal}}% this test is new
    {\ifmorenames{\andothersdelim\bibstring{andothers}}{}}{}}

The MWE

\RequirePackage{filecontents}
\begin{filecontents*}{\jobname.bib}
@Article{boker2011,
Author = {Boker, S. and Neale, M. and Maes, H. and Wilde, M. and
Spiegel, M. and Brick, T. and Spies, J. and Estabrook,
R. and Kenny, S. and Bates, T. and others},
Title = {Open{M}x: {A}n open source extended structural
equation modeling framework},
Journal = {Psychometrika},
Volume = {76},
Number = {2},
Pages = {306--317},
year = 2011
}


\documentclass{apa6}
\usepackage[american]{babel}
\usepackage{csquotes}
\usepackage[style=apa,maxnames=999,sortcites=true,sorting=nyt,apabackref=true,backend=biber]{biblatex}
\DeclareLanguageMapping{american}{american-apa}
\addbibresource{\jobname.bib}
\addbibresource{biblatex-examples.bib}

\DeclareNameFormat{apaauthor}{%
  \ifthenelse{\value{listcount}=\maxprtauth\AND\value{listcount}<\value{listtotal}}
    {\addcomma\addspace\ldots\addspace}
    {\ifthenelse{\value{listcount}>\maxprtauth\AND\value{listcount}<\value{listtotal}}
      {}
      {\ifthenelse{\iffieldequalstr{doubtfulauthor}{true}}
        {\mkbibbrackets{\usebibmacro{name:apa:last-first}{#1}{#3}{#4}{#5}{#7}?}}
        {\usebibmacro{name:apa:last-first}{#1}{#3}{#4}{#5}{#7}}}}%
  \ifthenelse{\value{listcount}=\value{listtotal}}
    {\ifmorenames{\andothersdelim\bibstring{andothers}}{}}{}}

\shorttitle{IFA}

\begin{document}

OpenMx \parencite{boker2011,aksin,wilde,murray}

\printbibliography
\end{document}

then yields

enter image description here

Update 2013-10: This has been corrected in biblatex-apa version 6.4 according to a comment below the question from user PLK.

Best Answer

Related Solutions

[Tex/LaTex] Adapting an existing biblatex style in order to imitate Springer’s author-year reference list rules for authors

[Tex/LaTex] biblatex messing up citation entry with lots of authors

Related Question