List Archives >  EndNote List Archive >  Archive by date >  This Month By Date >  This Month By Topic

Thomson Reuters:"Re: Sorting bibliography by number of authors?" - 1 New Post - Community Subscription

Search email archive for  

Thomson Reuters:"Re: Sorting bibliography by number of authors?" - 1 New Post - Community Subscription
Author: Community Mailer    Posted: Thu, 29 Sep 2011 08:58:31 -0700
Subject: Re: Sorting bibliography by number of authors? Author: LLCC (Contributor) Date: 09-29-2011 04:58 PM Further experiments have got me a bit further with this.    I had forgotten that output style is only partially obeyed when exporting references and that I needed to cite into a document in order to test the sort order properly.   It now seems that sorting by first author +number of authors + year + author name will correctly put the single author papers before two author ones and follow the two authors by three and so on.   It also correctly orders by year and author name for the one and two-author papers.   Where it fails (and I can see no way to fix it) is to group all the three-or-more author papers together and sort by date.   Any ideas?

Thomson Reuters:"Re: Sorting bibliography by number of authors?" - 1 New Post - Community Subscription
Author: Community Mailer    Posted: Sun, 2 Oct 2011 03:42:21 -0700
Subject: Re: Sorting bibliography by number of authors? Author: CrazyGecko (Guru) Date: 10-02-2011 11:42 AM The bibliography sort order [First Author + # of Authors + Year  + Author Name] reveals the problem which affects two of the sorting fields. Using the field “# of Authors” represents the total number of authors within a given reference, however, what is needed is a categorical number that classifies authors by group (for repeated authors). Categorizing the authors will also require adjusting the way two-author references are sorted as opposed to using the “Author Name” in the sort order (i.e., for references where the first author is repeated such as “Bailey” shown in the example). This will call for parsing out the second author to facilitate sorting for a two-author reference of which the first is a repeated author.   Replacing the two sort fields (i.e., # of Authors, Author Name) with two customized fields will enable adjusting the bibliography sort order. The overall process entails: modifying the reference templates, reference field, and bibliography sort order (refer to Image 2 for the result generated in MS Word). The process would entail the following process (refer to Image1 for steps 1 to 3):   1. (Refer to Image 1.) Modify the reference type template by adding two custom fields: 1) one field to categorize the number of authors (AuthorGrp); and 2) another field (2ndAuthor) to  which will be used to parse the second author to enable sorting by the second author . (This example uses the Journal Article template.)      2. (Refer to Image 1.) Next, modify only references where there is more than 1 author and the first author is repeated in another reference. (For example, Bailey & Ashford (1992), and Bailey, Smith, Woodward, & Galandiou (1992).   a. In the AuthorGrp field, assign a number corresponding to the number of authors in the reference. For example, for a two-author reference (e.g. Bailey & Ashford), enter the number “2” in the AuthorGrp field.  If the reference contains 3 or more authors (e.g., Bailey, Smith, Woodward, & Galandiou), enter the number “3”.  (Note: Single authored references do not require having a “1” as the sort order of First Author +….+Year will sort the entry.)   b. If the reference has two authors where the first is a repeated author (e.g., Bailey) then enter the second author’s name in the “2ndAuthor” field.   3. (Refer to Image 1.) Define the bibliography sort order in the output style’s “Sort Order” dialog box. The sort order is: First Author + Custom 3 + Custom 4 + Year .  (Custom 3 represents “AuthorGrp”; Custom 4 represents “2ndAuthor”.) Exit to save the output style changes which will be saved as a Copy so adjust both EndNote and MS Word to use the output style “Copy” file.   4. (Refer to Image 2.) Generate the bibliography in MS Word (see image 2). (Additional references were added to test the output.) The repeated author (Bailey) is shown in three different configurations: a) single author sorted by year; b) two authors sorted by second author; and 3) three or more authors sorted by year.

Thomson Reuters:"Re: Sorting bibliography by number of authors?" - 1 New Post - Community Subscription
Author: Community Mailer    Posted: Tue, 4 Oct 2011 02:06:41 -0700
Subject: Re: Sorting bibliography by number of authors? Author: LLCC (Contributor) Date: 10-04-2011 10:06 AM Many thanks!   As he's in the sciences I think he'll probably have quite large numbers of papers with 3 or more authors so the extra effort involved in setting up the extra fields is likely to be worth his while.    Certainly better than manually editing the final bibliography which was the way he was thinking of going.   Rosemary

Thomson Reuters:"Re: sort order versus repeated authors omitted" - 1 New Post - Community Subscription
Author: Community Mailer    Posted: Thu, 6 Oct 2011 03:59:01 -0700
Subject: Re: sort order versus repeated authors omitted Author: CrazyGecko (Guru) Date: 10-06-2011 11:58 AM >From your example it seems that the sort order needs to: 1) account for references involving more than 2 authors, while 2) sort on the first author for references involving multiple authors. If this is the case, using "Author" in the sort order of Year+Author won't accomplish this, resulting in the citation order as: Li and Keller, 1999; Miller et al., 2003; Friedrich et al., 2004; Miller et al., 2005.   A workaround (which was hastily tested using the 4 examples) might be to create a custom field for each reference type (e.g., "3PlusAuthors") to flag references with multiple authors and enable sorting them by the first author. Then for only references which have 3 or more authors, open the reference and in the 3PlusAuthors field, enter the name of the first author. So for example, the Friedrich et al reference's 3PlusAuthors field will have: Friedrich.  Make similar changes to other references having 3 or more authors.   Then change the citation sort order to: Year + Custom #  (the number should correspond to the 3PlusAuthors placement in the template.   As mentioned earlier, testing was performed using 4 examples but suggest additional references to fully vet the custom field and the resulting sort order.

Thomson Reuters:"Re: sort order versus repeated authors omitted" - 1 New Post - Community Subscription
Author: Community Mailer    Posted: Thu, 6 Oct 2011 06:27:31 -0700
Subject: Re: sort order versus repeated authors omitted Author: Mirjam (Regular) Date: 10-06-2011 02:27 PM I did all you suggested, but when the sort order for citations is year + custom than I still get (Li and Keller, 1999, Miller et al. 2003, Friedrich et al. 2004, Miller et al., 2005) because it is first sorted by year, and the Friedrich citation remains in the middle. However, I wrote for sort order: Custom 3 + Year, but then I get: (Li and Keller, 1999; Friedrich et al., 2004; Miller et al., 2003; Miller et al., 2005) and it does not omit the second Miller citation as it should.  :-(

Thomson Reuters:"Re: sort order versus repeated authors omitted" - 1 New Post - Community Subscription
Author: Community Mailer    Posted: Thu, 6 Oct 2011 06:36:41 -0700
Subject: Re: sort order versus repeated authors omitted Author: Mirjam (Regular) Date: 10-06-2011 02:36 PM I just saw, that it never omits the second citation when two from the same are used (Miller et al., 2003; Miller et al., 2005) instead I would like to have: (Miller et al., 2003, 2005) But now that both Miller citations are in a row, I can tell him to exclude the author name from miller et al. 2005, so I get what I want, but not automatically...

Thomson Reuters:"Re: sort order versus repeated authors omitted" - 1 New Post - Community Subscription
Author: Community Mailer    Posted: Thu, 6 Oct 2011 06:46:11 -0700
Subject: Re: sort order versus repeated authors omitted Author: Mirjam (Regular) Date: 10-06-2011 02:46 PM Now I have the problem when I have citations like these: [Clarke and Jenkyns, 1999; Huber et al., 1995; Huber et al., 2002]  where I put "Huber" in the 3plusField, but the Huber citations should come before Clarke, because the first is earlier.   It is a bit frustrating..

Thomson Reuters:"Re: sort order versus repeated authors omitted" - 1 New Post - Community Subscription
Author: Community Mailer    Posted: Thu, 6 Oct 2011 07:04:41 -0700
Subject: Re: sort order versus repeated authors omitted Author: Leanne (Mentor) Date: 10-06-2011 03:04 PM I have to be honest here.    Why does this matter so much to you?  Spending so much time on this when you should be concerned about the content of your writing, just doesn't make sense to me (speaking as a "boss" right now).  Not to mention that these are very strange aesthetics!  If this is for a publication, rest assured that the publisher will have a mechanism to make your references sorted in the house style.  That is what editors are paid for.

Thomson Reuters:"Re: sort order versus repeated authors omitted" - 1 New Post - Community Subscription
Author: Community Mailer    Posted: Thu, 6 Oct 2011 07:24:01 -0700
Subject: Re: sort order versus repeated authors omitted Author: Mirjam (Regular) Date: 10-06-2011 03:23 PM Oh, are you sure, that this is the editors work? My supervisor says differently, he says the citations need to be in correct order etc. He does everything by hand and is not using endnote, but I thought it should be possible here and even easier...

Thomson Reuters:"Re: sort order versus repeated authors omitted" - 1 New Post - Community Subscription
Author: Community Mailer    Posted: Thu, 6 Oct 2011 07:36:41 -0700
Subject: Re: sort order versus repeated authors omitted Author: Leanne (Mentor) Date: 10-06-2011 03:36 PM Do you have author instructions that dictate these requirements?  Publishers need to get a life.    In my 35 years of publishing (in scientific journals), I have NEVER had a paper rejected because the citations were in a slightly inconsistent manner and yes, on occasion, the proofs came back with some rearrangements.    If it is important to you (or to your supervisor), when they do accept it, make these perverse um, detailed changes when you send in the final version and be done with it.  I haven't heard this kind of discussion since my son graduated from high school (where teachers appear to love imposing their own take on MLA, APA and the like and didn't like "Endnote"s rendering.  My son won those arguments, for the most part, by the way.).    Just my own two sense.  sorry for the rant.

Thomson Reuters:"Re: sort order versus repeated authors omitted" - 1 New Post - Community Subscription
Author: Community Mailer    Posted: Thu, 6 Oct 2011 13:34:51 -0700
Subject: Re: sort order versus repeated authors omitted Author: CrazyGecko (Guru) Date: 10-06-2011 09:34 PM To clarify my earlier posting, refer to Image 1 for the steps.  Pls. note a correction to the the citation sort order which should be: Custom 3 + Year.  My apologies for inverting the order.   The end result is shown in image2.  If discrepancies continue, please identify the full author list for citations involving 3 or more authors as something may be occurring which cannot be discerned by seeing the first author alone (e.g., Frederich et al).

Thomson Reuters:"Re: sort order versus repeated authors omitted" - 1 New Post - Community Subscription
Author: Community Mailer    Posted: Fri, 7 Oct 2011 01:03:31 -0700
Subject: Re: sort order versus repeated authors omitted Author: CrazyGecko (Guru) Date: 10-07-2011 09:03 AM Mirjam,   Your prior postings identified 3 citations in their preferred format:        (Li and Keller, 1999; Friedrich et al., 2004; Miller et al., 2003; 2005)      (Clarke and Jenkyns, 1999; Huber et al.,1995; Huber et al., 2002)      (Miller et al., 2003, 2005)   After some experimenting it seems the 3 citation formats can be generated, however, it's hard to say whether the initial set-up to achieve these citations will hold up when tested against with other variants which haven't been identified.  The key difficulty occurs with "splitting" references by a repeated author such as:  (Clarke and Jenkyns, 1999; Huber et al.,1995; Huber et al., 2002). It wouldn't be a problem if all repeated authors are to be treated this way but the first citation shows the condiion of aggregating repeated authors: (Li and Keller, 1999; Friedrich et al., 2004; Miller et al., 2003; 2005).   Again, it's possible to replicate the 3 citations listed above but due to the setup, problems will occur if Huber (1995, 2002) needs to be cited elsewhere in aggregate form.  Constructing a solution (or knowing when there's no solution) requires identifying all the possible citation format conditions first so I'm doubtful that the setup for generating the 3 citations will accommodate other conditions.   Given the uncertainty and amount of work involved in trying to adjust the citations, suggest you make a copy of your document, convert  it to text to remove the EndNote field codes, then manually make the necessary changes.

Previous by date: Thomson Reuters:"Re: EndNote X5 - Ubuntu Lucid" - 1 New Post - Community Subscription, Community Mailer
Next by date: Thomson Reuters:"Tab Pane - default view" - 1 New Post - Community Subscription, Community Mailer
Previous thread: Thomson Reuters:"Re: Library won't open" - 1 New Post - Community Subscription, Community Mailer
Next thread: Thomson Reuters:"Tab Pane - default view" - 1 New Post - Community Subscription, Community Mailer