New style: Proteins: Structure, Function, and Bioinformatics

IMGrant

Hi, I couldn't find a CSL style for the journal 'Proteins: Structure, Function, and Bioinformatics', so I have created one: https://gist.github.com/999240

If it's of general use, perhaps somebody could upload it to the repository.

It's my first effort at CSL. I created it with Mendeley in mind, as that's what I'm using, and based it on the EndNote style, and examples in current papers.
There are some caveats as far as certain fields go, compared to the EndNote version but for basic journal papers it is fine, I think.

adamsmith

Looks great - I'd probably take out
<category field="generic-base"/>
but that's more a matter of taste. I'll put it up asap.

edit: sorry, still had this set to html.

IMGrant

I had to view source to see you said take out the 'category field="generic-base"' bit - I don't mind, I think I just copied that from another style, have to confess I didn't really look into the category stuff (apart from adding biology which I think is appropriate).

adamsmith

You should report some of these issues to Mendeley:
If you're interested, the Zotero mappings are here:
http://gsl-nagoya-u.net/http/pub/csl-fields/index.html

Report Number and Patent number should map to "number"
Thesis type should map to "genre"
Series Title should map to "collection-title"

I also wonder if "Working Paper" is really best mapped to "article". Zotero doesn't have a working paper category, Itend to treat them as reports, the alternative would be manuscript.

(Obviously they can decide to do this differently than Zotero, but considering that most of the styles are so far written with Zotero in mind that would seem odd.)

As for the style itself, I wouldn't assume that the endnote style is necessarily correct. E.g. it seems highly unlikely that you would want the edition for an edited book but not for a monograph. Same for volume.

For csl coding - you rely very heavily on prefix and suffix: Styles are less sensitive to missing data fields if you use group and delimiter instead.

Stylistically, it is often better to find common traits in the formatting of bibliographies and make distinctions in the macros, rather than turn the bibliography section into a giant loop. See e.g. the APA style for an example.

IMGrant

Thanks for the info, I will try and remember to report stuff to the Mendeley people, and maybe also update this style if I get the time. I'll keep the tips re prefix/suffix and loops in mind for future updates or styles.

adamsmith

maybe also update this style if I get the time. I'll keep the tips re prefix/suffix and loops in mind for future updates or styles

great thanks - I'll let you know when I upload it - post here with any updates to the style.