Bibliography with subsections

peterolin

I've searched the forum questions for this, but everyone seem to ask for multiple bibliographies in separate chapters. I'm hoping for something less complicated, I believe.

I have one bibliography, but I want to have it divided into two (or more sections) as such:


== Primary literature ==
a alphabetically sorted entry…
b alphabetically sorted entry…
c alphabetically sorted entry…
…

== Secondary literature and translations ==
a alphabetically sorted entry…
b alphabetically sorted entry…
c alphabetically sorted entry…
…

Each section need to be sorted separately.

Is there a way to achieve this, by placing the references in different Subcollections in Zotero, or giving them specific tags, etc. and fiddling with the Style Editor in some way?

Kind regards,
Peter

adamsmith

You can't add sections in citation styles. You can sort the bibliography e.g. by item type first and then manually add the sections at the end. See
https://forums.zotero.org/discussion/23604/a-mini-guide-to-sort-bibliography-by-reference-type

peterolin

Thanks, that's exactly what I was hoping and looking for!

jfmenard

Hi @adamsmith I've used your mini-guide to update OSCOLA to sort my bibliography by document types. It works very well except for the fact that the "book section" is not sorted alphabetically. Any idea why that would be or what I could do to fix that (besides doing it manually, of course). Thanks a lot for considering my question.

Another question I have is about multi-author paper. I don't understand why it appears in my bibliography without any indication that it is multi-authored. Only the name of the first author shows up.

Thanks a lot for your help and all your hard work.

adamsmith

We'd have to see the modified style to say more. Post to pastebin.com or hastebin.com and link to it from here.

jfmenard

Thanks for the quick reply. Here is my modified style : https://pastebin.com/eEqeNQeZ

Thanks

adamsmith

Book sections aren't alphabetical because you included their title in the sort string. Remove line 531.

I'm seeing multiple authors for multi-authored papers. Could you give an example>

jfmenard

Thanks!

A footnote that reads : Birchley G and others, ‘“Best Interests” in Paediatric Intensive Care: An Empirical Ethics Study’ (2017) 102 Arch Dis Child 930

Turns up as follows in the bibliography:

Birchley G, ‘Deciding Together? Best Interests and Shared Decision-Making in Paediatric Intensive Care’ (2014) 22 Health Care Anal 203
——, ‘Harm Is All You Need? Best Interests and Disputes about Parental Decision-Making’ (2016) 42 JME 111
——, ‘“Best Interests” in Paediatric Intensive Care: An Empirical Ethics Study’ (2017) 102 Arch Dis Child 930

adamsmith

Does this happen if there are not other Birchley citations? Wondering if it's an issue with the author substitute --- not working right.

jfmenard

Indeed, I just tested it and it doesn't not happen if there are no other Birchley citation but it does if there is more than one. It might have to do with the fact that there are 5 authors for this paper. It doesn't do that for a 2 authors paper.

adamsmith

@fbennett @bwiernik I think citeproc-js does follow the letter of the spec here, but the result seems wrong to me:

“complete-all” - (default), when all rendered names of the name variable match those in the preceding bibliographic entry, the value of subsequent-author-substitute replaces the entire name list (including punctuation and terms like “et al” and “and”), except for the affixes set on the cs:names element.

To see the weird behavior:

- Take one citation with a single author and one citation with 4+ author with that author as first author. The examples above are e.g. the first and the third of the Birchley citations (dois 10.1136/medethics-2015-102893 and 10.1136/archdischild-2016-312076 if you want to replicate)
- Use a style with et-al-min="4" and et-al-use-first="1" and author-substitute, e.g. the OSCOLA style

You then get the output above, i.e. they're grouped under the same author, with no indication of the et al. That's literally what the spec says -- only go by rendered names, and replace et al -- but that can't possibly be something that's ever desirable?
My view is that the correct behavior is to only apply author substitute when all names (rather than rendered names) are the same. The corrected spec would remove the word "rendered" That would also seem to be what Chicago Manual requires: "For successive entries by the same author(s), translator(s), editor(s), or compiler(s), a 3-em dash replaces the name(s) after the first appearance " (15.18)

Thoughts?

jfmenard

Does anyone have a suggestion for me? I'm submitting my PhD this week and the cite unfortunately concerns one of my examiners. Any alternative to fixing it manually?

adamsmith

Anything will include some manual tweaking but what I'd probably do is to just add different letters to Birchley's last name in different co-authorships (so Birchleyz, Birchleyy etc.) That'll make co-authors show up as expected and you'll only need to remove those letters on final edit (and then unlink citations and fix the references in Zotero again.

The alternative would be to either turn off or change the author-substitute function in the style, which is also pretty easy.

bwiernik

@adamsmith I’m okay with that correction. As this is a bug fix, it should go into CSL 1.0.*, correct?

adamsmith

correct, yes

jfmenard

Thanks @adamsmith that's a clever way to do it!