# How can I add the bibliography in a report with its own section, including number?

I'm writing my thesis as a `report` document using TeXShop (`pdflatex` and `bibtex`) and want the bibliography to get its own section number and appear in the table of contents. Here's what I've tried so far and the problems arising:

``````\addcontentsline{toc}{section}{References}
``````

Does not add the section number, not in the toc and naturally not in the section title.

``````\cleardoublepage
\renewcommand*{\bibname}{\section{References}}
\bibliographystyle{plain}
\bibliography{bibliography}
``````

Error: ! Incomplete \iffalse; all text was ignored after line 1.

``````\cleardoublepage
\section{References}
\renewcommand*{\bibname}{}
\bibliographystyle{plain}
\bibliography{bibliography}
``````

The only problem this leaves is that this starts the actual bibliography on the next page after it inserts 2.5 References. Otherwise I would be happy with this solution. How can I solve this issue?

-

Preliminary remark: In the report class, the bibliography will by default be typeset as an unnumbered chapter. If I understand correctly, you do not only want the bibliography to be numbered, but also "downgraded" to a section.

One solution is to selectively change the definition of `\thebibliography`. Add the following to your preamble:

``````\usepackage{etoolbox}
\makeatletter
\patchcmd{\thebibliography}{%
\chapter*{\bibname}\@mkboth{\MakeUppercase\bibname}{\MakeUppercase\bibname}}{%
\section{References}}{}{}
\makeatother
``````

In the main document body, just use

``````\bibliographystyle{plain}
\bibliography{bibliography}
``````

I left out `\cleardoublepage` for the sake of consistency (sections do not automatically start a new page).

-
Works like a charm, thank you very much! (And also for correcting the bibilography-typo) :) –  Pascal Nov 3 '10 at 18:17
Note that this doesn't work with `natbib`. I've changed natbib.sty (added an option tocnumber) to get me a numbered `\section` –  Pascal Jan 6 '11 at 11:40
@egreg You're absolutely right, thanks for this! –  Pascal Jun 12 '11 at 16:18