Thanks again for your response. It is getting faster with time.
yah, i got the solution for the 2nd query from your suggestion. But still i am not able fix the solution to first query. How will i put a,b.c in first reference?

In the text i will have [1-2]. But [1] itself will have more than one references. It will appear as

Main text: The synthesis and kinetics of metal alloys are of current interest.[1-2]

[1] a)F. Pu, J. Organomet. Chem., 1995, 36, 391. b) B. Stephen, V. P. John, Inorg. Chem., 1995, 16, 1034.
[2] G. Qu, J. Organomet. Chem., 1996, 47, 492.

Well it is common in RSC journals, wiley journals. Also sometimes with acs journals. But in acs journals they may not give a,b,c etc. I am showing you a part of references from this journals which has this format sometimes.


RSC:
Direct metal–metal interactions are important because they are often associated with many potentially useful chemical and physical properties of materials such as catalytic behavior, or magnetic, optical, or electronic properties.[1]

1 (a) K. Campbell, C. J. Kuehl, M. J. Ferguson, P. J. Stang and R. R. Tykwinski, J. Am. Chem. Soc., 2002, 124, 7266; (b)G. S. Papaefstathiou and L.R.MacGillivray, Angew. Chem., Int. Ed., 2002, 41, 2070; (c) J. C. Noveron, M. S. Lah, R. E. Del Sesto, A. M. Arif, J. S. Miller and P. J. Stang, J. Am. Chem. Soc., 2002, 124, 6613.


WILEY:
More recently, the lack of receptors capable of complexing both neutral and anionic electron-rich substrates led to the emergence of polydentate Lewis acids.[1]

[1] a) F. P. Schmidtchen, M. Berger, Chem. Rev. 1997, 97, 1609-1646;
b) W. E. Piers, G. J. Irvine, V. C. Williams, Eur. J. Inorg. Chem. 2000,
2131-2142; c) J. D. Hoefelmeyer, M. Schulte, M. Tschinkl, F. P.
Gabbai, Coord. Chem. Rev. 2002, 235, 93-103.

Well the type of situation when it may come up varies. Like communication paper are short. So journals sometimes ask limited number of references. like they don't want it to go from 1 to 50 etc. In that case they can be grouped in single reference as 1a), b), c) etc. also if we are referring to the same material or its properties, we can have more than one papers. In that case also similar works are grouped in one reference.

Wild stuff. Nothing like this is possible in current CSL, and it's safe to say that it won't be possible to support it in CSL 1.0 either. The problem is that the organization of the cites in these examples differs in a fundamental way from orthodox in-text styles. Ordinarily we have cites to individual resources, which are bundled together into a "citation" containing multiple items. Here, you have cites bundled into groups, with numbering applied within the group, and then the groups are bundled into a "citation". Neither Zotero nor the processor have a means of modelling that middle layer of grouping.

Whether support for this kind of style will become possible further down the road, I'm not sure, but at first blush, at least, it certainly does look difficult.

The short answer is that there has been no movement.

The longer story is that I have some ideas for how this could be handled in the processor, but it will be awhile (figure a year or more) before anything happens.

There are two modest barriers. First, it's kind of low on my personal priority list at the moment (as I'm not a chemist) although I'll eventually get to it because it's an interesting problem. (If someone were to make a gift in support of chemistry-related CSL development work to the law faculty that employs me, that would change the picture of course.)

The second modest barrier is that there is likely to be resistance to adoption of any necessary extensions in the official version of the CSL language. It could be deployed in the MLZ extended version of CSL which I control, though, so that's not really a show-stopper.

Time, actually. :-)

Hi there, I am glad to help you and I am very happy that something is moving in this direction.

Well, let me start to say that the most of Wiley journals tend to use this citation style (i.e. Angew. Chem.),so:

1) there is no any strictly guide lines concerning the order. The common sense is to order citations in chronological order and if there is any review to put it first. As I said, there is no any rule so endnote, for example, collapses citations keeping the order you used to select the articles (I think this idea is the best, and we are already using it in the multi-citation section of zotero, arent we?).

2) We usually tends to use this system if we are talking about something very interesting/important (that means, there are a lot of articles covering that particular topic that are very closely related to each other, that could be cited) or , as it happened to me recently in writing a review, if you want to add an errata corrige article (for example, I found that after 1 year an errata corrige was publish by the same author who found that one structure that was published in its previous article was bad determined. So in that case I wrote: [76] a) Author, title, year, volume, pages; b) errata corrige: Author, title, year, volume, pages.) We do not group citation by author names, but by topic covered. It quite common to see same authors in the collapsed citation just because the chemistry is very wide so most of people cover just one specific field, so that they tend to publish a lot articles on similar topics. The [76] a, is a very particular case: as you can see the journal looks the same, indeed it is!. Angewandte (-Angew- is a very important journal in chemistry) has 2 versions: a German one ("Angewandte chemie", wrote in German) and the English one ("Angewandte chemie international edition"). So you can find the same article in both, in one it is written in English and in the other one in German. So if you want to cite an article in Angew. you need to report both journals! Now,again, there is no any rules concerning which style you can use to cite: I mean, you for sure have to use a collapsed one but both of the following should be correct and accepted:

[76] For a review, see: a) L. J. Goossen, N. Rodrguez, K. Goossen,
Angew. Chem. 2008, 120, 3144 – 3164; Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. 2008,
47, 3100 –3120; b) L. J. Goossen, K. Goossen, C. Stanciu, Angew.
Chem. 2009, 121, 3621 –3624; Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. 2009, 48,
3569 – 3571.

or

[76] For a review, see: a) L. J. Goossen, N. Rodrguez, K. Goossen,
Angew. Chem. 2008, 120, 3144 – 3164; b) Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. 2008,
47, 3100 –3120; c) L. J. Goossen, K. Goossen, C. Stanciu, Angew.
Chem. 2009, 121, 3621 –3624; d) Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. 2009, 48,
3569 – 3571.

Let' s say the first one could be the most "elegant" version, but the second one is accepted as well.

I hope everything is clear, if you need any help please just let me know.

thank you

ps: I do not know if it would be feasible or not, but the idea could be to create a new section in "Add/edit citation" window, under the "multiple sources" window, so that every article inserted in there could be collapsed in a sub bibliography (resulting in: 1)a) xxx b) xxx c) xxx ...)

We do not group citation by author names, but by topic covered.

Is this why you suggest UI support might be needed -- because the grouping is arbitrary?

Where grouping is done (dividing a single multiple citation into a)...b)... etc) is it right that it cannot be derived from the content? I had previously assumed that the groups represented clusters of citations cited in a multiple reference earlier in the paper, but apparently any cluster of cites on the same topic might be grouped together as (say) a)...?

Let me post an example... from the review:

"...The review is structured in three main sections: (1) Synthesis of SF5-containing molecules (primary reactivity); (2) Reactions of SF5-containing molecules (secondary reactivity); (3) Biological properties. Different aspects of the chemistry and properties of SF5-compounds have been reviewed, mainly in book chapters [4–9]..."

At the moment the bibliography looks like:

bibliography:

[4] H.L. Roberts, Q. Rev. Chem. Soc. 15 (1961) 40–47.
[5] J. Mohtasham, R.J. Terjeson, G.L. Gard, R.A. Scott, K.V. Madappat, J.S. Thrasher, J. Mohtasham, R.J. Terjeson, G.L. Gard, R.A. Scott, K.V. Madappat, J.S. Thrasher, in: Inorganic Syntheses, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., pp. 33–38.
[6] R. Winter, G.L. Gard, in: J.S. Thrasher, S.H. Strauss (Eds.), Inorganic Fluorine Chemistry, American Chemical Society, Washington, DC, 1994, pp. 128–147.
[7] P. Kirsch, M. Bremer, Angew. Chem., Int. Ed. 39 (2000) 4216–4235.
[8] W.R. Dolbier, Chim Oggi 21 (2003) 66–69.
[9] D.A. Jackson, “Breaking down the substituent of the future”: Environmental properties of pentafluorosulfanyl compounds, University of Toronto, 2008.

It would be better to group them (they are all talking about the properties of this particular group)just to compact the size and to help people to visualize that they all are covering the same aspect. It would be:

"...The review is structured in three main sections: (1) Synthesis of SF5-containing molecules (primary reactivity); (2) Reactions of SF5-containing molecules (secondary reactivity); (3) Biological properties. Different aspects of the chemistry and properties of SF5-compounds have been reviewed, mainly in book chapters [4]..."

bibliography:

[4] a) H.L. Roberts, Q. Rev. Chem. Soc. 15 (1961) 40–47.
b) J. Mohtasham, R.J. Terjeson, G.L. Gard, R.A. Scott, K.V. Madappat, J.S. Thrasher, J. Mohtasham, R.J. Terjeson, G.L. Gard, R.A. Scott, K.V. Madappat, J.S. Thrasher, in: Inorganic Syntheses, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1992,pp. 33–38.
c) R. Winter, G.L. Gard, in: J.S. Thrasher, S.H. Strauss (Eds.), Inorganic Fluorine Chemistry, American Chemical Society, Washington, DC, 1994, pp. 128–147.
d) P. Kirsch, M. Bremer, Angew. Chem., Int. Ed. 39 (2000) 4216–4235.
e) W.R. Dolbier, Chim Oggi 21 (2003) 66–69.
f) D.A. Jackson, “Breaking down the substituent of the future”: Environmental properties of pentafluorosulfanyl compounds, University of Toronto, 2008.


By the way, it should be possible that at some point you need to cite one of the book previously cited, because you are now talking about another aspect that it is still covered by that book... so in that case (I think here we should have some problem) the citation should be: "as it has been shown by Thrasher [4b]".

An still more complicated case should be, citing the old reference + a new one:

"as it has been shown by Thrasher and Winter [4b,92]"

bibliography:

...
[4] a) H.L. Roberts, Q. Rev. Chem. Soc. 15 (1961) 40–47.
b) J. Mohtasham, R.J. Terjeson, G.L. Gard, R.A. Scott, K.V. Madappat, J.S. Thrasher, J. Mohtasham, R.J. Terjeson, G.L. Gard, R.A. Scott, K.V. Madappat, J.S. Thrasher, in: Inorganic Syntheses, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1992,pp. 33–38.
c) R. Winter, G.L. Gard, in: J.S. Thrasher, S.H. Strauss (Eds.), Inorganic Fluorine Chemistry, American Chemical Society, Washington, DC, 1994, pp. 128–147.
d) P. Kirsch, M. Bremer, Angew. Chem., Int. Ed. 39 (2000) 4216–4235.
e) W.R. Dolbier, Chim Oggi 21 (2003) 66–69.
f) D.A. Jackson, “Breaking down the substituent of the future”: Environmental properties of pentafluorosulfanyl compounds, University of Toronto, 2008.
...
[92] R. Winter, G.L. Gard, J. Fluorine Chem. 50 (1990) 141–149.

Hi,
I have never seen any other style, but I was wondering if it could exist something like

[1] I)fdgf II)dgfdfdfd III)gfgfdhg IV)dfgfdgfdg V)dgfg

I have double checked on endnote and it looks like you cannot change the letter style, so probably it means that the latter style is not employed at all (not 100% sure...)

By the way, you can see something like:

Bibliography

[1] a) xxx b) xxx c) xxx
or
[1] a) xxx; b) xxx; c) xxx;
or
[1]a)xxx;b)xxx;c)xxx;
or
1. a)xx b)xx c)xxx
or
1. a)xx; b)xx; c)xxx;

and so on (so it would be great you can choose what kind of separator
you want to use, if spaced or not...)

Concerning the citations, you could see:

"as it has been shown by Thrasher and Winter (4a-c)" or "as it has been shown by Thrasher and Winter (4a,4b)"

This should happen when in the previous paragraph you were talking about a closely related topic (so you cited a group of reference)

"...The review is structured in three main sections: (1) Synthesis of SF5-containing molecules (primary reactivity); (2) Reactions of SF5-containing molecules (secondary reactivity); (3) Biological properties. Different aspects of the chemistry and properties of SF5-compounds have been reviewed, mainly in book chapters [4]..."

But in the new paragraph you are focusing on just a particular aspect or reaction that it was shown in just few articles:

"... One of the most recent improvements of the preparation of SF5Br was developed by Gard et al. who reported that a slow reaction (6-11 days at r.t.) between molecular bromine and BrF3 in the presence of cesium fluoride, followed by an even slower reaction of the resulting BrF with SF4 (36 days at r.t. or 20 days with moderate heating) afforded high yields (99.6% and 88.2%, respectively) of SF5Br [4b,4c]."


bibliography:

[4] a) H.L. Roberts, Q. Rev. Chem. Soc. 15 (1961) 40–47.
b) J. Mohtasham, R.J. Terjeson, G.L. Gard, R.A. Scott, K.V. Madappat, J.S. Thrasher, J. Mohtasham, R.J. Terjeson, G.L. Gard, R.A. Scott, K.V. Madappat, J.S. Thrasher, in: Inorganic Syntheses, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1992,pp. 33–38.
c) R. Winter, G.L. Gard, in: J.S. Thrasher, S.H. Strauss (Eds.), Inorganic Fluorine Chemistry, American Chemical Society, Washington, DC, 1994, pp. 128–147.
d) P. Kirsch, M. Bremer, Angew. Chem., Int. Ed. 39 (2000) 4216–4235.
e) W.R. Dolbier, Chim Oggi 21 (2003) 66–69.
f) D.A. Jackson, “Breaking down the substituent of the future”: Environmental properties of pentafluorosulfanyl compounds, University of Toronto, 2008.

But in the new paragraph you are focusing on just a particular aspect or reaction that it was shown in just few article

@Breath, you explained above that the two articles referenced in 76(a) are two translations of the same manuscript, published by Angewandte Chemie (German) and Angewandte Chemie International Edition (English).

Do you know of any other cases where a number/letter combination (e.g. "4b") references more than one item?

Hi,

1)

every reference (e.g. [1],[2]) or any subgroup of reference (e.g. [1]a), [1]b)) should cite just one article. The exception should be done for Angewandte because in both the journals (int edi. and German one) the article is the same. However, I would prefer in that case to use this style:

(WITHOUT ANY LETTER)
[5] M. C. Whisler, S. MacNeil, V. Snieckus, P. Beak, Angew. Chem.
2004, 116, 2256 – 2276; Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. 2004, 43, 2206 –
2225, and references therein

instead of

[5] a) M. C. Whisler, S. MacNeil, V. Snieckus, P. Beak, Angew. Chem.
2004, 116, 2256 – 2276; b) Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. 2004, 43, 2206 –
2225, and references therein

because I think it would be easier to be understood (by someone not in chemistry field) that we are talking about the same stuff.

I cannot remember whether any other chemical journal is publishing in both, English and original language... Maybe some other case should exist (for example in biochemistry or any other chemistry-related field?). Can Anyone confirm it?


2)
You are right, in the guidelines for authors, they are reporting both styles (that means, you can choose what you prefer or what your reference management software let you do). Again, I would suggest to use the second one just for citing 2 different journals publishing the SAME article, and the first one to cite DIFFERENT articles concerning the SAME topic

I have just checked few articles from the last issue of Angewandte int. As you can see it looks like the trend is as I suggested above:

DIFFERENT ARTICLES:
[24] a) P. Dauban, R. Dodd, Synlett 2003, 1571; b) P. Mller, C. Fruit,
Chem. Rev. 2003, 103, 2905; c) J. A. Halfen, Curr. Org. Chem.
2005, 9, 657; d) T. Katsuki, Chem. Lett. 2005, 34, 1304; e) C. G.
Espino, J. Du Bois, Modern Rhodium-Catalyzed Organic
Reactions (Ed.: P. A. Evans), Wiley-VCH, Weinheim, 2005,
pp. 379 – 416; f) H. Lebel, O. Leogane, K. Huard, S. Lectard,
Pure Appl. Chem. 2006, 78, 363; g) P. Dauban, R. Dodd, Amino
Group Chemistry. From Synthesis to the Life Sciences (Ed.: A.
Ricci), Wiley-VCH, Weinheim, 2008, pp. 55 – 92; h) H. M. L.
Davies, J. R. Manning, Nature 2008, 451, 417; i) M. M. DazRequejo, P. J. Prez, Chem. Rev. 2008, 108, 3379; j) S. Fantauzzi,
A. Caselli, E. Gallo, Dalton Trans. 2009, 5434; k) F. Collet, R.
Dodd, P. Dauban, Chem. Commun. 2009, 5061; l) D. N. Zalatan,
J. Du Bois, Top. Curr. Chem. 2010, 292, 347; m) T. G. Driver,
Org. Biomol. Chem. 2010, 8, 3831; n) N. Boudet, S. Blakey,
Chiral Amine Synthesis (Ed.: T. C. Nugent), Wiley-VCH,
Weinheim, 2010, pp. 377 – 395; o) Z. Li, D. A. Capretto, C. He,
Silver in Organic Chemistry (Ed.: M. Harmata), Wiley, Hoboken, 2010, pp. 167 – 182; p) H. Lebel in Catalyzed CarbonHeteroatom Bond Formation (Ed.: A. K. Yudin), Wiley-VCH,
Weinheim, 2011, pp. 137 – 155; q) B. J. Stokes, T. G. Driver, Eur.
J. Org. Chem. 2011, 4071; r) J. Du Bois, Org. Process Res. Dev.
2011, 15, 758; s) F. Collet, C. Lescot, P. Dauban, Chem. Soc. Rev.
2011, 40, 1926

SAME ARTICLE
[9] G. J. Halder, K. W. Chapman, J. A. Schlueter, J. L. Manson,
Angew. Chem. 2010, 122, 429; Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. 2010, 49,
419, and references therein


DIFFERENT ARTICLES
[27] For the effects of solvent and TMEDA on the configurational
stability of chiral lithiated aryloxiranes, see: a) V. Capriati, S.
Florio, F. M. Perna, A. Salomone, Chem. Eur. J. 2010, 16, 9778 –
9788; b) F. M. Perna, A. Salomone, M. Dammacco, S. Florio, V.
Capriati, Chem. Eur. J. 2011, 17, 8216 – 8225.

SAME ARTICLE
[5] M. C. Whisler, S. MacNeil, V. Snieckus, P. Beak, Angew. Chem.
2004, 116, 2256 – 2276; Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. 2004, 43, 2206 –
2225, and references therein.

If, as fbennett suggests, we leave the Angewandte Chemie-case for now, I think we would need the following modifications on the CSL side:

- a variable for the citation number suffix, e.g. "citation-number-suffix" (similar to "year-suffix")
- a delimiter for items that share a citation number, e.g. "citation-number-suffix-delimiter" (a bit long, but the naming scheme would be consistent with "year-suffix-delimiter")
- a way to define the style as one using compound bibliographic entries. We probably shouldn't rely on the "citation-format" attribute, since that is metadata stored within cs:info, which shouldn't affect style behavior. Maybe an attribute on cs:bibliography would make most sense.

Sorting should already work: in addition to sorting by "citation-number", you could just specify a secondary sort key for items sharing a citation number.