style for Cellular Microbiology

phyto
I created a pull request for the style of Cellular Microbiology.

It works as expected in Word, but generates a bug in the Visual editor when selecting multiple references by the same author in the same year:

in the Visual editor
(Smits et al., 2010a, [object Object], [object Object])

in Word
(Smits et al., 2010a,b,c)
  • adamsmith
    you can create an issue on the github of the editor:
    https://github.com/citation-style-editor/csl-editor/issues
    but currently there is no one really maintaining it. We (that's the CSL team in this case) are currently trying to convince Mendeley to invest som developer time in the maintenance of the editor, not sure if that'll work.
  • RintzeRintze
    Steve Ridout recently updated the citeproc-js version of the editor, though. But I haven't heard of this particular regression.
  • adamsmith
    not sure this is a regression. I think there has been very, very little testing with anything other than the built-in references, so this may just never have come up.
  • RintzeRintze
    Yes, if it was a citeproc-js error the output would have included the word "blob" somewhere :).
  • phyto
    edited September 23, 2013
    If it is of any help, I did not notice this particular bug (but another one) with the Visual Editor for the style Plant Pathology at the beginning of this month (see https://forums.zotero.org/discussion/31657/style-for-plant-pathology/#Item_10). But currently the Plant Pathology style also produces this bug.
  • adamsmith
    that does sound like a regression than, thanks
  • phyto
    @Adamsmith: I updated the pull request according to your comments on Github (ISSN and substitution by editor in case of missing author name) and included a bibliography format for webpages. However, I did not catch your comment "(...)You'd also want to add a label for authors" so I did nothing about that.

    I just realized (but too late) that Cellular Microbiology and Molecular Microbiology have presumably the same style (although I did not look into details such as disambiguation). Would it make some sense to include this information somewhere, so that improvements of one style could benefit the other one ? Or indeed to confirm that both style are identical and have a single style definition ?

    Still one minor unresolved issue for the Cellular Microbiology style for book chapters:
    * the style guide of Cellular Microbiology indicates "(ed.)" even for two editors
    * the only example of book citation I found in few articles was "(eds)" for two editors (see ref Ni Cheallaigh et al. in Killick et al. 2013, Cellular Microbiology, 15, 1484–1495)
    * for Molecular Microbiology, the style guide indicates "(eds)" for two editors
    So I wonder if there could be one mistake in the style guide of Cellular Microbiology.
  • adamsmith
    Where two styles are the same, we make one a dependent of the other. This is how this looks, e.g. for the journal scientific reports, which uses the same style as Nature:
    https://github.com/citation-style-language/styles/blob/master/dependent/scientific-reports.csl

    It looks very much like the two journals use the same style and I agree that the ed/eds issue is just a typo in the Cell. Micro. instructions, so unless you've come across any other difference between the two, I'll just add it as a dependent style to Molecular Micro. Thanks for pointing that out.
Sign In or Register to comment.