I would like my references to look like

Foo et al. 2008, Nature, 100, 200 • Bar & Baz et al. 2010, Science, 300, 400 • Einstein, 1905, New Scientist, 5, 6

where "•" is perhaps some configurable delimiter character, rather than like:

Foo et al. 2008, Nature, 100, 200

Bar & Baz et al. 2010, Science, 300, 400

Einstein, 1905, New Scientist, 5, 6

One (the crucial?) difference between my question and a similar previous question is that I use natbib and author-year citations. Here's a minimal example, that uses Stefan's answer, but has a couple of problems:




    Author = {{Author}, A.},
    Journal = {Science},
    Month = dec,
    Pages = {493-+},
    Title = {{Title A}},
    Volume = 490,
    Year = 1922,

    Author = {{Buthor}, B.},
    Journal = {Nature},
    Month = nov,
    Pages = {748-+},
    Title = {{Title B}},
    Volume = 136,
    Year = 1962,


Citations: \cite{Author,Buthor}



The problems are: (1) The citations in the text are question marks (I get errors like Package natbib Warning: Citation `Author' on page 1 undefined on input line 37.) and (2) I'm redefining the list environment to put a bullet every time, which feels wrong semantically, and results in Package paralist Warning: Incorrect label; no or multiple counters.

The third (and I think separate) problem is to do with my BiBTeX style file, mn.bst. If I use that rather than, e.g. plain, not only are the citations questions marks, but the references are screwed up and look like

• Author(1922)]Author Author A., 1922, Science, 490, 493 • Buthor(1962)]Buthor Buthor B., 1962, Nature, 136, 748

Note the citations and references look fine if I comment out the material between \usepackage{paralist} and \usepackage{filecontents}.

Guidance on any or all of these problems would be very welcome, and guidance that postpones my inevitable migration to biblatex especially so! :-)

  • 2
    I was looking to do this a couple of years ago and solicited both natbib and biblatex solutions on comp.text.tex. No one volunteered a natbib solution, but there is a very simple biblatex solution. The question then is how particular is the mn.bst style that it couldn't quickly be replicated using biblatex. Alternatively (assuming that you only want this for a short list of refs. you could do it semi-manually using \bibentry commands from natbib). – Alan Munn Feb 24 '11 at 1:56

Removing the \renewcommand{\bibitem}[1]{\item} seems to work.

EDIT: try this....



Citations: \cite{Author,Buthor}

  • That fixes the missing citations and the garbled references with mn.bst, but the delimiter (\textbullet in this case) disappears. – mike Feb 24 '11 at 17:41
  • @Mike Right. The natbib \bibitem command is quite complicated, so exchanging it with something like just \item as in the original suggestion simply doesn't work. – Alan Munn Feb 24 '11 at 17:52
  • 1
    @Mike, see edit. – Lev Bishop Feb 24 '11 at 18:25

I think I must have used this question as the template for my work... but this package: https://github.com/keflavich/tex_compact_bib implements exactly the above, while also limiting the bibliography to 3 authors before going to 'et al'.

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

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