I am trying to write my CV, and I want to include a list of publications. To do that, I want to include a .bbl file directly (which was generated using bibtex).
So, in my CV I do
\input{publications.bbl}
This seems to work fine, except for one thing: an asterisk (*) appears on the left to the lists of publications! I don't know where this * comes from and why it appears there. Any idea how I can remove this *?
Thanks.
The thebibliography environment is already included in .bbl files so processing the file with
\input{publications.bbl} should be enough.
The format of the publication list depends on the bibliography style used by BibTex with
the \bibliographystyle command. For more information about available styles take a look at:
https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/LaTeX/Bibliography_Management#Bibliography_styles
Did you use \nocite{*}? putting \nocite{*} before \bibliographystyle can cause the asterisk to appear.
I had the same issue, this works for me:
\bibliographystyle{IEEEtran}
\nocite{*}
\bibliography{my_bib_file}
I'd have to see some code. but first you do
\begin{thebibliography}{}
\input{publications.bbl}
\end{thebibliography}
Is that what you have? In fact, try this and see if you still get the "error":
\begin{thebibliography}{}
\bibitem{ano05}
A. Nonymous et al.\ 2005, \aap 123, 456\\[-20pt]
\bibitem{oe04}
A.N. Other \& S.O.M. Ebody 2004, \pasp 123, 456\\[-20pt]
\end{thebibliography}
Related
I'm trying to write a scientific article and the associated supplementary materials entirely in RStudio with rmarkdown.
It seems clear that book down is the way to go to cross-reference between files (https://stackoverflow.com/a/38884378/576684), but I also would like to be able to reference figures produced in one pdf in the other pdf.
Although my latex has got quite rusty with time, I imagine it could be achieved as follows:
compile the article tex and SuppMat tex a first time using rmarkdown::render()
compile these tex files from the command line in order to keep the corresponding .aux file with their references (missing references won't be resolved at this time)
recompile the 2 tex files from the command line another time where all references should now be resolved
Is it a reasonable way to do it? am I overlooking something simpler?
In any case, it requires:
a different numbering of figures in each pdf file (covered by https://stackoverflow.com/a/51337664/576684)
to prevent rmarkdown from trashing the .aux files (it seems that pandoc doesn't allow this, hence the need to create the aux file using standalone latex)
to tell latex to use the additional .aux file if it is found (probably using header-includes: in the YAML header). how can I achieve that?
Thank you very much for your help!
It turns out that the xr package is one way to go: https://texblog.org/2016/08/23/adding-references-from-an-external-file/
so this works from R:
rmarkdown::render("myarticle_ms.Rmd",
bookdown::pdf_book(base_format=rticles::plos_article),
clean=FALSE)
rmarkdown::render("myarticle_SM.Rmd",
bookdown::pdf_book(base_format=rticles::plos_article),
clean=FALSE)
tinytex::pdflatex("myarticle_ms.tex", clean=FALSE)
tinytex::pdflatex("myarticle_SM.tex", clean=FALSE)
tinytex::pdflatex("myarticle_ms.tex")
tinytex::pdflatex("myarticle_SM.tex")
with the following in the YAML header of myarticle_ms.Rmd (and the corresponding one the SuppMat file header):
header-includes:
\usepackage{xr} \externaldocument{myarticle_SM}
Hope it makes life easier for a few others :)
I am using these commands for including references:
\addcontentsline{toc}{chapter}{References}
\bibliographystyle{agsm}
\bibliography{dissrefs}
The problem is that in the table of contents both References and Bibliography appear, while I just want one to appear. Why is this happening? Can I customise the table of contents entry to be just one of them?
I am using MikTex 2.8 and TexMaker 2.1.
I dont think that you need to use \addcontentsline{toc} bibtex should do it automatically. At least I don't recall ever needing it...
Have you tried commenting out that line?
Edit regarding OPs comment on changing the title of the bibliography:
The bibliography's title can be changed by (to for instance "New Title") using \renewcommand\refname{New Title} for articles and \renewcommand\bibname{New Title} for books.
Instructions are read and processed in the order they appear, I think your problem is related to that order. Try moving things around (I believe that all settings should be put before \tableofcontents, but I'm not sure about that, I'v not used latex for a long time)
I'm producing a set of documents in LaTeX, and I would like to provide a single, global bibliography page for the whole set. This is because each document is page-limited: I don't want to take up space with references at the bottom of each one.
This means in each case, I would like to cite in the text, but not produce a reference at the end. I am using bibtex/natbib to handle the referencing.
Simplest example:
\documentclass[]{article}
\bibliographystyle{/usr/share/texmf/bibtex/bst/natbib/plainnat.bst}
\usepackage{natbib}
\begin{document}
In \citet*{MEF2010} I described the method.
\bibliography{bibliography.bib}
\end{document}
How can I do this? Essentially I just want it to cite correctly:
In Bloggs, Blagg and Blog (2010) I described the method.
But not add a references section at the end. Any ideas?
Thanks,
David
Instead of using \bibliography{bibliography.bib} you can try \nobibliography{bibliography.bib}.
You still need to enter the path so it can make the cross-references.
It happens due to missing packages. If you want to resolve the problem then enable the automatic installation packet. After that,First, you run the BibTeX file and generate the Pdf file (instead of pdfLatex file) and then pdfLatex to Pdf
I added a line "\cite{test}" as a test to my working Latex document. When I compiled the bibtex "!bibtex name_of_my_file, I got the expected error:
Warning--I didn't find a database entry for "test"
Then, I removed the line and compiled the bibtex again, hoping to have a working Latex file again. However, the same error occurs, even with a fresh shell. I cannot understand the behaviour. What is the logic? How can I get my Latex document working again?
[Updated Info]
The problem dissapeared as unexpectedly as it emerged. I have no idea why but it works now. Do you know the reason for the odd behaviour?
I think you are tripping over the multi-pass nature of LaTex plus Bibtex. If you look at Step 3 in this discussion, you'll see the following:
The first run (through latex)
generates an auxiliary file,
paper.aux, containing information
about citations (and other types of
references), the bibliography style
used, and the name of the bibtex
database. The second run (through
bibtex) uses the information in the
auxiliary file, along with the data
contained in the bibtex database, to
create a file paper.bbl. This file
contains a thebibliography environment
with \bibitem entries formatted
according to the bibliography style
specified.
So, what I think is happening is that your name_of_my_file.aux file still contains your placeholder \cite{test}. If you remove the auxiliary file, you should be able to start over with:
latex name_of_my_file
bibtex name_of_my_file
latex name_of_my_file
latex name_of_my_file
[Update based on additional info]: The problem was that you had a .aux file with your \cite{} still embedded. The second time that you ran latex, you overrode the old file with the new. That's why the complete set of steps includes an initial latex call, a bibtex call and two follow-up latex calls. Think of it as a multi-pass compiler and it might be more intuitive.
You could have a look at latexmk, which will take care of the fix point compilation for you.
Anyway, you should be able to build the document (pdflatex blah.tex), even if you're missing a bibliography item. The corresponding references will just appear as question marks in the PDF.
Rerun latex to regenerate the aux file.
Have a look at this discussion for pointers to a bit more information. Basically, you may have taken your citation out of the .tex file, but it still exists in one of the derived files (aux, bbl, whatever...)
Check if your bib file has the extension .bib and not .tex.
If it is .tex, just change it to .bib and that should do it.
Once I changed it accidentally to tex, by adding some references, and saving it with the "save as" option, without specifying the bib extension. That's how it can happen all of a sudden.
delete all your .aux and temporal files, re run with latex and then bibtex and then latex twice.
I need a way to add text comments in "Word style" to a Latex document. I don't mean to comment the source code of the document. What I want is a way to add corrections, suggestions, etc. to the document, so that they don't interrupt the text flow, but that would still make it easy for everyone to know, which part of the sentence they are related to. They should also "disappear" when compiling the document for printing.
At first, I thought about writing a new command, that would just forward the input to \marginpar{}, and when compiling for printing would just make the definition empty. The problem is you have no guarantee where the comments will appear and you will not be able to distinguish them from the other marginpars.
Any idea?
todonotes is another package that makes nice looking callouts. You can see a number of examples in the documentation.
Since LaTeX is a text format, if you want to show someone the differences in a way that they can use them (and cherry pick from them) use the standard diff tool (e.g., diff -u orig.tex new.tex > docdiffs). This is the best way to annotate something like LaTeX documents, and can be easily used by anyone involved in the production of a document from LaTeX sources. You can then use standard LaTeX comments in your patch to explain the changes, and they can be very easily integrated. If the document lives in a version control system of some sort, just use the VCS to generate a patch file that can be reviewed.
I have used changes.sty, which gives basic change colouring:
\added{new text}
\deleted{old text}
\replaced{new text}{old text}
All of these take an optional parameter with the initials of the author who did this change. This results in different colours used, and these initials are displayed superscripted after the changed text.
\replaced[MI]{new text}{old text}
You can hide the change marks by giving the option final to the changes package.
This is very basic, and comments are not supported, but it might help.
My little home-rolled "fixme" tool uses \marginpar where possible and goes inline in places (like captions) where that is hard to arrange. This works out because I don't often use margin paragraphs for other things. This does mean you can't finalize the layout until everything is fixed, but I don't feel much pain from that...
Other than that I heartily agree with Michael about using standard tools and version control.
See also:
Tips for collaboratively editing a LaTeX document (which addresses you main question...)
https://stackoverflow.com/questions/193298/best-practices-in-latex
and a self-plug:
How do I get Emacs to fill sentences, but not paragraphs?
You could also try the trackchanges package.
You can use the changebar package to highlight areas of text that have been affected.
If you don't want to do the markup manually (which can be tedious and interrupt the flow of editing) the neat latexdiff utility will take a diff of your document and produce a version of it with markup added to visually display the changes between the two versions in the typeset output.
This would be my preferred solution, although I haven't tested it out on large, multi-file documents.
The best package I know is Easy Review that provides the commenting functionality into LaTeX environment. For example, you can use the following simple commands such as \add{NEW TEXT}, \remove{OLD TEXT}, \replace{OLD TEXT}{NEW TEXT}, \comment{TEXT}{COMMENT}, \highlight{TEXT}, and \alert{TEXT}.
Some examples can be found here.
The todonotes package looks great, but if that proves too cumbersome to use, a simple solution is just to use footnotes (e.g. in red to separate them from regular footnotes).
Package trackchanges.sty works exactly the way changes.sty. See #Svante's reply.
It has easy to remember commands and you can change how edits will appear after compiling the document. You can also hide the edits for printing.