# Exclude \fullcite{…} citation from bibliography

Is there a way to excluded a citation specified in the text by \fullcite{Doe2013} from the bibliography? (I'm using biblatex+biber.)

• \newrefsection might be what you're looking for. – user31993 Jun 10 '13 at 5:51

There are a number of ways you might exclude particular entries from the printed bibliography:

1. Set skipbib=true as an option in that entry in your .bib file.

2. Set a keyword for such entries, and print a bibliography excluding them with a notkeyword filter.

3. Add such entries to a category using \DeclareBibliographyCategory, \addtocategory and the notcategory filter.

If you are dealing with one or two specific entries, then (1) or (2) is probably easiest. If you want a general mechanism, then the third will probably be the best. Something like

\documentclass{article}
\usepackage{biblatex}

\DeclareBibliographyCategory{fullcited}

\begin{document}

Chemists deserve numbers: \cite{cotton}. But historians get a full citation in the text
and are excluded from the bibliography: \fullcite{reese}.\mybibexclude{reese}

\printbibliography[notcategory=fullcited]

\end{document}


You could, if you needed this a lot, construct a new citation command that did this automatically. But it's probably overkill.

• Great solutions! I tried the first and the third. The citation disappears from the bibliography, but there will be one missing number in the bibliography list (e.g. \cite{cotton} after \mybibexclude{reese} and the list starts with [2]). Any idea on how to prevent that? – Wox Apr 29 '13 at 15:50
• Ok, I had to run latex-biber-latex-latex to fix the numbering. Thanks! – Wox Apr 29 '13 at 16:30
• It's important to have the option 'defernumbers=true' set for biblatex. – tgkolda Sep 1 '17 at 10:33

I know this is an old thread, but it somehow crossed my path today, and I think the question may benefit from another twist. The OP asks for the exclusion of a citation if it is done with \fullcite. Paul Stanley's answer gets the job done, of course. However, the three of his proposed solutions will exclude the entry, irrespective of whatever happens in the rest of the document. Even if the entry is later cited with \cite or another citation command. This answer proposes a way to exclude \fullcites from the bibliography, but without hampering that the affected entry get to the bibliography if cited some other way. Of course, this may well be overkill for a number of needs, but may perhaps be useful for specific requirements.

\documentclass{article}
\usepackage{biblatex}

\DeclareBibliographyCategory{inbib}

\makeatletter
\AtEveryCitekey{%
\ifcsstring{blx@delimcontext}{fullcite}
{}
\makeatother

\begin{document}

Chemists deserve numbers: \cite{cotton}. But historians get a full citation in the text and are excluded from the bibliography: \fullcite{reese}.
%But may reach the bibliography if cited with a standard cite command: \cite{reese}.

\printbibliography[category=inbib]

\end{document}

• I think you could even drop the fullcite toggle if you tested for the delim context: \AtEveryCitekey{% \ifcsstring{blx@delimcontext}{fullcite} {} {\addtocategory{inbib}{\thefield{entrykey}}}} – moewe Mar 17 '18 at 6:18
• @moewe I hadn't thought of that. And actually, I didn't really know there was a delim context for fullcite. In any case, this is a large improvement, because, thus dropping the toggle, I can also drop the redefinition of \fullcite. Thanks! – gusbrs Mar 17 '18 at 11:15
• @moewe, I tried to make this work for refsections too, but the addtocategory has global effects. Is there any such "marker" which would only be set for the current refsection? – gusbrs Mar 17 '18 at 11:54
• Yes, categories are always global. And they have to be defined in the preamble, so they can't be provided on the fly in the document body. You can work around the fact that categories are global by defining one for each refsection, but that requires dynamic definition in the document. See gist.github.com/moewew/48eed49cbd1596d73ef8ebc720fc29c3 – moewe Mar 17 '18 at 13:27
• @moewe That's very nice indeed! I feared that a category per refsection was the way around it, but didn't suppose a definition on the fly was possible. I don't know if you think such revival of an old question is granted, but if I were to see that as an answer here, it'd certainly receive my upvote. :) – gusbrs Mar 17 '18 at 14:28