Style Error: [Science Advances]
Hi there,
There appears to be a small but significant error in the Science Advances style guide: the instructions given by Science Advances is that the bibliography citation should contain the full list of authors- no "et al.".
Tried to fix this myself by opening in Notepad and changed the minimum number for et al., but unfortunately the code doesn't seem to open in Notepad.
Thanks,
Gordana
There appears to be a small but significant error in the Science Advances style guide: the instructions given by Science Advances is that the bibliography citation should contain the full list of authors- no "et al.".
Tried to fix this myself by opening in Notepad and changed the minimum number for et al., but unfortunately the code doesn't seem to open in Notepad.
Thanks,
Gordana
science-advances is just a dependent of science.csl.
In both their guidelines they specify to use all authors (see https://www.sciencemag.org/authors/instructions-preparing-initial-manuscript and link above for advances).
Adapt style?
(funny enough they give examples with et al. for preprint articles at the very bottom.)
Indeed, they require to use all authors. I tried to see if I can adapt the style, but when I open up the csl code, it doesn't actually seem to say much. (The code is also found here: https://github.com/citation-style-language/styles/blob/master/dependent/science-advances.csl)
Or is there a more user friendly way to change it?
Many thanks, by the way to all the people who replied so quickly :-)
It is better if we change the style for every user than just you. There is dozens of submissions to these journals every week, so it should be correct for everybody. But it needs to make sense and actually correct.
@bwiernik Thank you for that link.
I've been following a few of the forum debates on this topic. The uncertainty of whether to remove "et al." seems to be founded on the idea that the Science Advances citation style is identical to that of Science, which appears to have different rules for its HTML and PDF versions. However, the actual Science Advances articles don't appear to use "et. al", not even in the PDF versions.
Shall we just contact Science Advances directly and clarify the matter? Or is it a bit naive to think they'll reply on this matter?
Which reference manager are you using, how are you testing this?