Style Request: Taylor & Francis Vancouver/National Library of Medicine (NLM) style

Hi all. We are publishing in Brain Injury (from the Taylor & Francis group) and none of the current styles appear to match their particular style described here: https://www.tandf.co.uk//journals/authors/style/reference/tf_USVancouver.pdf

Would Zotero be willing to release a new style compatible with Taylor & Francis Journals? I would be so grateful!
  • Unfortunately it is not the same formatting in multiple ways as the requested format https://www.tandf.co.uk//journals/authors/style/reference/tf_USVancouver.pdf

    This is the format requested:

    1. Hisakata R, Nishida S, Johnston A. An adaptable metric shapes perceptual space. Curr Biol. 2016;26:1911–1915.

    (1) in text

    And this is the format from the link you pasted:

    [1] Hisakata R, Nishida S, Johnston A. An adaptable metric shapes perceptual space. Curr Biol [Internet]. 2016 [cited 2016 Oct 3];26:1911–1915. Available from: http://www.cell.com/current-biology/abstract/S0960-9822(16)30544-9.

    [1] in text
  • Just following up to see if anyone would be able to help with this! I'd be so grateful.
  • edited September 22, 2020
    I suspect that you are misreading the T&F guidelines. I refer you to the several examples near the end of your example guidelines. What is actually printed or appearing in the pdf version will be different than what is in the author manuscript guidance.

    I am a reviewer for two T&F journals and _every_ manuscript that the publisher sends me has a bibliography like the Zotero example (more complete than your example). I am expected to not only comment on the body of the manuscript but also check the references to verify that 1) the reference accurately points to a real article and 2) that the published article actually contains original findings that support what the manuscript author(s) assert. The manuscript bibliography needs to have full pointers to the cited references else we reviewers would not want to take the time to search for the cited material.

    [A large number of manuscript citations point to statements made in the referenced article's introduction or background. The original article(s) could (_should_) have been cited instead of the intro section of the cited article. My guidance is to do a cursory review of the manuscript with comments about major problems but to indicate the citation fraud (!) and recommend rejection. Is it really fraud if the background work was delegated to a sloppy suburdinate and not checked by the lead author? Clearly, some publishers are quite serious about accuracy in manuscript citations.]

  • No, I think the square vs. round brackets thing is pretty clearly a difference. This likely will require another style, though one of the existing Vancouver ones may work.
  • Thanks all for the feedback. DWL SDCA, this paper has already been reviewed and has been accepted. This format change was specifically requested by the managing editor before it is sent to publishing now that it has been accepted so it is not a content issue but a format issue.
  • I am wondering if Zotero has already revised the Taylor & Francis Vancouver/National Library of Medicine (NLM) style?
    The style right now is still not match the instruction (for Taylor & Francis Vancouver/National Library of Medicine (NLM) style) below:
    https://www.tandf.co.uk//journals/authors/style/reference/tf_USVancouver.pdf

    Or if there is another style name that would match the instruction please let me know.

    Thanks!
  • edited October 5, 2021
    I have solved the issue by changing the code by myself.
    For people who want to know how to change the code:
    Change: layout prefix="[" suffix="]" delimiter=","
    To: layout prefix="(" suffix=")" delimiter=","

    However, I don't know how to add DOI to the reference.
    Could someone please add DOI to the style? Thank you!
Sign In or Register to comment.