arxiv Translator
The surprisingly bad performance of Zotero in creating accurate references in this:
http://www.istl.org/11-summer/refereed2.html
has led me to look at some of the reasons. The biggest issue is, unsurprisingly, poor import quality - I think some of it can be fixed.
Specifically, the Arxiv translator puts "doi:" in front of the doi: number, and puts the arxiv e-pub number in the publication field and the journal title and volume and issue in the extra field. That seems unfortunate...
http://arxiv.org/abs/0807.0145
http://www.istl.org/11-summer/refereed2.html
has led me to look at some of the reasons. The biggest issue is, unsurprisingly, poor import quality - I think some of it can be fixed.
Specifically, the Arxiv translator puts "doi:" in front of the doi: number, and puts the arxiv e-pub number in the publication field and the journal title and volume and issue in the extra field. That seems unfortunate...
http://arxiv.org/abs/0807.0145
I understand what you say about the other issue, but then arXiv papers shouldn't be treated as journal articles - because arXiv is not a journal. For most citation styles treating arXiv:0704.0001 (or the like) as a journal title will produce wrong citations.
I would say report is probably the best fit, as these are essentially working papers with a clear identifier.
It does underline the importance of getting journal abbreviation lists working, but Frank is fortunately making progress on that front.
I'm still wondering, though, whether treating arxiv preprints as journal articles is a good idea then.
- paper title
- description fields (?)
- tags / subject descriptors
- DOIs, URLs (these may refer to the published version)
- article ID (currently used as the journal name)
- authors
- date
My preferred mapping is to manuscript, with the article ID referring to the Location in Archive, and the archive set to arXiv.
But, as always, our decision here will likely hinge on what the citation guidelines are for preprints. Are they even covered in style guides?