Other options for date (in press etc...)

Zotero doesn't recognise:
to appear
in press
in preparation etc....
in the date field. If I put these in it puts 0000 in the main view date field, and doesn't print a date when I output a reference.
Can we add support for this?
  • I suggest a "status" field for the appropriate types, with a fixed set of options (so the values should probably map to URIs on export, rather than be plain strings).

    So you could then have:

    date: 2008
    status: forthcoming

    ... or:

    status: submitted
  • could support for "no date" also be added please. specifically for web site citations which often require the n.d. date specification.
  • Lots of new stuff got added/changed with the newest Zotero, but this wasn't one of them, so I am bumping it just in case it isn't on a "to do" list, as I would say it’s a priority (i.e. a "must have" not a "nice to have" - right now I have to go back and manually correct outputted references).
  • I agree that this is a must-have feature, as I cite (and therefore manually correct) a lot of unpublished or undated things. Another thing I use a lot that Zotero doesn't seem to support is putting the original date of a republished work in brackets. (For example, Durkheim 1995 [1912].) Currently, these dates get truncated and only the unbracketed year comes through.
  • Have either of these issues (support for 'in press', 'n.d.', etc. or support for bracketed original publishing dates for reprints) been addressed? I agree with the others that these are must-have features for research-active writing, particularly the first.
  • edited February 18, 2008
    No, the ticket is still open--the issue is pretty complex, as you can see from the comments.
  • edited February 18, 2008
    Some of it's complex. but some is really simple. Adding a status field with a pop-up selector (options like "unpublished', "forthcoming" and so forth) would, for example, be simple.

    And splitting of this part of the problem from the other part then simplifies solving those issues too.

    E.g. what's complex is trying to force a single text field to a wide range of stuff.
  • Actually, looking through ticket, I'm wondering if forthcoming vs. published can't be handled even more simply: an issued date in the future simply becomes forthcoming?

    It might not work that well because dates are often rather vague in publishing (say "2008") but still worth thinking about perhaps. For example, say there is a field to select "forthcoming." Zotero could at least be smart enough to know that if there's a date that's obviously in the past, it gets switched off (so users don't have to maintain the proper value themselves).
  • Can I bump this up again, please!

    I'm using Chicago Author-Date, and right now Zotero puts nothing for the date in the citation when the date field reads "in press". I wouldn't object to simply outputting the contents of the field if it's not a date; that would mean that my in line references would look like (Her & Him, forthcoming) or (Him & Her, in press) rather than the current (Him & Her) which just looks strange.
  • I'm bumping this too because 'in press' and the like are really essential. I like Bruce's suggestion of a simple drop-down menu of 'status'. The clever stuff can come later.
  • Another vote for fixing this problem!
    It seems that the easiest thing to do would be to leave unparsable date fields alone as plain text?
  • I'd also be quite happy to see this fixed....
  • I'd also like to see it being fixed... ;-)
  • It seems that the easiest thing to do would be to leave unparsable date fields alone as plain text?
    It might be "easy", but it's not "good."
  • Just a thought. Would it be a good solution to allow the Date-field to be toggled to a Status-field, similar to how authors and editors are handled now? The Date-field could still accept text (both parsable and nonparsable), while the Status field could rely on the pull-down menu bdarcus proposed. This would decrease the overcrowding of fields, although it of course would exclude the ability to set both a date and status.
  • edited February 5, 2009
    I think I have a solution for the problem descibed in this thread (I use Zotero 1.5):

    in the Bibliography Section of my csl I put:
    <text macro="contributors" suffix=". "/>
    <text macro="date" suffix=". "/>
    <text macro="day-month" text-case="capitalize-first" suffix=". "/>

    instead of <text macro="contributors" suffix=". "/>
    <text macro="date" suffix=". "/>

    Then, when I write "forthcoming" in the field "Date" of Zotero, I get the word "Forthcoming" in my bibliography, instead of the date.
    I do not know how or why this works. But it works!
    Maybe this hack is going to be useful also to others.
  • Amazing. This works. Thanks.
  • Hi. I'm still living in the past with 1.0.9 (because my uni seems reluctant to upgrade to Firefox 3), and I can't seem to find the necessary line in the CSL to apply the above fix.

    I see the ticket on this hasn't been active for a while - can I just add my own request that you make it possible to enter dates as strings, such as "in press", if that's as easy as it seems? While adding all sorts of fancy options such as 'status' and approximate dates might be nice in the long term, there are plenty of cases where a string will work fine and it would be a big help in the meantime. And could you do this for version 1.0 as well, please?

    Meanwhile, in case anyone else is having this problem, I've found a fairly obvious, if somewhat ungainly, way around it: just add " (in press). " or " (forthcoming). " or whatever before the title:

    e.g. Title:
    (in press). Prediction and embodiment in dialogue

    (you need the space before the parentheses for some reason) - and it comes out as:

    Pickering, M. J., & Garrod, S. (in press). Prediction and embodiment in dialogue. European Journal of Social Psychology.  

    - which I'm pretty sure is APA standard, though I haven't checked in the manual.
  • yes this would be a great feature, as I often need to distinguish between an actual date, "in press", or "submitted". Right now I have to edit it manually right before printing, as if I do a refresh before printing it'll remove my edits.
  • @spacediver: which styles require this? Can you provide links to the style guides?
  • APA - but I'm going on what I see in the literature in my field which may not always conform to APA standards. However, here is some relevant info:


  • What's the value of any distinction between "in press" and "forthcoming"? Can we treat those as synonymous?
  • edited September 22, 2009
    The easiest solution might be to just add a status text field to the journal article type. If users only use the field for unpublished materials ("submitted", "in press", etc.), you can test in CSL whether the variable has any content, and if so, apply conditional formatting (e.g. <if variable="status"/>).

    Not restricting the field content might be problematic if you'd want to localize the status-string, but I'm not sure whether that is really important anyway.
  • not sure what that distinction is - perhaps forthcoming is a blanket term that covers both "in press" and "submitted". If I understand Rintze's suggestion, that sounds like the best solution. The "in press" or "forthcoming" field replaces the date field I believe.
  • Just b/c you submit something doesn't means it will be forthcoming. I ask because I'm not interested in leaving this open-ended free text. They're going to be controlled values.
  • edited September 24, 2009
    The actual terms are used quite sloppily, but here are some distinctions I've seen on CVs, in increasing level of "done-ness":
    1. in preparation (I have only started the paper)
    2. with co-authors (or advisor or corporate approval; now someone else's problem)
    3. submitted
    4. accepted
    5. I have additional details about the publication (final proofs, a DOI, or vol/iss), but not all of them
    Depending on who is making the claim, "in press" can mean the last point ("it is at the printer"), one of the last two points, or even one of the last three points ("it is at the publisher"). Similarly, I have seen "forthcoming" used either as a synonym (as we have many fewer actual presses these days) or (and I agree this is inaccurate) really as any of the above ("I know I'll just publish this somewhere sometime").
  • I doubt that "submitted" should even be a category. Would anyone ever cite a paper as "submitted"? What if you get rejected - everyone will know... I'd want to see an example of this before putting it in.

    The difference between "in print" and "forthcoming" seems to be the degree of information that's known. Everytime I've seen "in print" the citation actually had a date often even an issue number, but in print was added because the actual publication was in the future.

    Forthcoming, on the other hand, usually doesn't have a date yet, or at least no precise date.

    as in

    Joe Nunes (marketing) has a paper in print (with Drèze, Xavier), (2009). “Feeling Superior: The Impact of Loyalty Program Structure on Consumers’ Perception of Status,” April 2009 issue of Journal of Consumer Research.


    "Testing Portfolio Efficiency with Conditioning Information," 2008, with Andrew F. Siegel, Review of Financial Studies (forthcoming).

    (these are from here: http://www.marshall.usc.edu/faculty-and-research/recent-publications-04-09.htm - I didn't find anything official on this, sorry).
  • I'll try to take a look at an apa style guide tomorrow at the lab about the proper usage of these terms.
  • just did a quick index search of my collection of pdfs (hundreds of articles from the field of vision science), and seems that I was wrong about those terms replacing the date. However, I did see many uses of the word submitted and in press. I think once the review process has begun, and it appears as if things are looking good, then people may use submitted.
  • I was wrong about those terms replacing the date.
    Yes; I've probably seen it replace the 'volume' more-often-than-not.
Sign In or Register to comment.