TeX - LaTeX Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for users of TeX, LaTeX, ConTeXt, and related typesetting systems. It's 100% free, no registration required.

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

I need to write an introduction to a topic which relies heavily on several University lecture slides and scripts. I would like to acknowledge this by using something like this:

The following exposé is based on the lectures by \citet{A, B, C} and on \citep{X, Y}.

But the question is, how do I cite them properly? In particular, what is the right BibTeX category? Is the following the only way? I would like to use something as unspecific as misc as little as possible.

  Author = {Ridcully, Mustrum},
  Institution = {Unseen University},
  Howpublished = {University Lecture},
  Year = {2000},
  Title = {An Introduction to Crossbow Hunting}
share|improve this question
+1 for the example bibdata! – Peter LeFanu Lumsdaine Nov 20 '10 at 3:07
up vote 26 down vote accepted

Quoting from the biblatex documentation, section 2.1.1:

unpublished: A work with an author and a title which has not been formally published, such as a manuscript or the script of a talk.

Thus, you could use unpublished instead of misc.

I see, however, a general problem in referring to something that has not been published: the reader has no possibility to check what you are referring to, which is, in my humble opinion, the whole point in making references.

share|improve this answer
if the lecture notes are available online, there's always the howpublished or url entry lines... – Seamus Nov 19 '10 at 15:12
It’s not the whole point. Another important function of references is to distinguish own contributions from prior art, and to acknowledge it. Apart from that, every claim requires a source, whether the reader can personally check it or not. “personal communication” is in fact a valid reference (although certainly not as valuable as a published, peer-reviewed paper, and there seems to be debate whether this belongs in the list of references). Apart from that, the lecture material in question is actually published on the web, and I will hyperlink to it. – Konrad Rudolph Nov 19 '10 at 15:15
@Konrad: Don't forget to include the date with your hyperlink. In difference from published books and articles, the web is very much not static... – Tomas Lycken Nov 19 '10 at 15:26
@Konrad If it is published in the web, I would consider it as 'published', however if it is only a lecture I attended I would not. After all it will be my `interpretation' of what I have heard and then I would rather treat it in a footnote. – Yiannis Lazarides Nov 19 '10 at 15:29
@Yiannis: fair point. In this particular case, I didn’t actually attend the lectures, I’m using the slides and published notes as the basis of my exposition. – In fact, I believe that misc is the best choice here, after all. But I still like @domwass’ answer. – Konrad Rudolph Nov 19 '10 at 15:35

Your Answer


By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.