I've been using natbib in my thesis with the 'author year' citation style. By far the most common way of doing citations in my field of study is superscript, so I want to change to natbib's super option. I've used the functionality in natbib that allows page numbers to be added to a citation: \citep[p. 104]{Eamon1994} gives [Eamon, 1994, p. 104].

However, when I switch to [super]{natbib} This results in texttexttext1 p. 104. What I would like is to have something like this: texttexttext1a, and then have the different letters in the bibliography with the page numbers (or intervals) they represent:

William Eamon. Science and the Secrets of Nature. Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey, 1994. a: p. 104, b: p. 189, c: p. 254-261.

I've seen one solution to this in the Superscript page numbers with natbib thread. Jan gave an answer that works if you write \cite[a]{Eamon1994}, which produces this1a, but you have to manually write every letter and page number into the BibTeX entry. Is there any way of doing this automatically? I still only have 20-30 entries in my bibliography, so if this is something that can be done in biblatex I would be interested to know.

  • I have to point out, as I did here, that AMA uses precisely the style which the OP requested. Aug 17, 2021 at 8:08

1 Answer 1


The short answer here is 'no', as the two parts of the process are essentially separate. The bibliographic entry is produced purely from the .bib file, while any notes are only 'available' where the citation is used. Even with biblatex doing things directly looks extremely tricky: you'd need some form of custom field in the bibliography linked to a custom counter for the sub-letters.

Quite apart from the technical issues, I wonder about how much this is a 'good idea'. I've never seen refs given in the way you suggest, and there is an argument that 'page numbers are not bibliographic information', i.e. they don't belong in the bibliography. Normally, when you do see references to individual pages in a book in the way you suggest, each reference is separate or they are of the form

  1. William Eamon. Science and the Secrets of Nature. Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey, 1994
  2. Ref. 1, p. 104
  • I think the answer to the question you linked to is the best way to go. You have 2 options as I see it - (a) the linked answer; (b)completely new, semi-duplicate refs as Joseph Wright suggests. I would say the former sounds easier - generally I find that if citing a book repeatedly, I don't need to keep citing the same page.
    – Chris H
    Aug 14, 2013 at 8:09
  • In the end I came to more or less the same conclusion as Joseph Wright and Chris H. It's just not a good idea to implement a solution such as the one I asked for above. I figured I had more or less the options of giving each page a new ref in footcite, so I don't get a bibliography crowded by references that have been used several times, or use a author-year bib.style. I went with the latter since I have quite a lot of footnotes as it is. Some times the obvious LaTeX way is the way to go! =) Aug 20, 2013 at 16:57

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .