2

I have a problem using apa6 class and doc type: since paper has many authors/affiliations etc., title-page is set quite low, leaving only 'Abstract' title and the body of abstract on the next page. This looks quite ugly, and I dunno how to solve it. Please, help!

\documentclass[doc,11pt,a4paper,natbib,floatsintext]{apa6}
\usepackage[german,serbian,american]{babel}
\usepackage[T1]{fontenc}
\usepackage{graphicx}
\usepackage{tabulary}
\usepackage{multirow}
\usepackage{rotating}
\usepackage{xspace}
\usepackage{color}
\usepackage{url}
\usepackage{times}
\usepackage{amssymb}
\usepackage{amsmath}
\usepackage{csquotes}

\shorttitle{Revision revisited}
\leftheader{Myname, Hername, Hisname, Hername, Hisname}

\title
    {Processing parts and a whole:
    \protect\\
    An information-theoretic approach to some interesting stuffs}
\fiveauthors
    {Myname Mysurname}{Hername Hersurname}{Hisname Hissurname}
    {Hername Hersurname}{Hisname Hissurname}
\fiveaffiliations
    {My affiliation at the University of something \&
        My second affiliation at the University of something else}
    {Her affiliation at the University of something}
    {His affiliation at the University of something}
    {Her affiliation at the University of something \&
        Her second affiliation at the University of something else}
    {His affiliation at the University of something \&
        His second affiliation at the University of something else}

\authornote{
    Please send correspondence to me: \\
    Email: first.author@something.edu \\ \ \\
    \noindent
    This research was supported some guys.
}

\abstract{
    Converting light into matter may sound like alchemy, but it's a natural outcome of physics – one that scientists have been demonstrating to varying degrees for decades. Now, a team of European physicists is proposing a way to do it much more simply.

    If the approach works as the researcher's initial calculations suggest, the results are unlikely immediately answer any vexing question, physicists say. The fundamental science behind the process of turning light to matter is already well understood. But it would be a new tool in physicists' toolkit.

    Currently, the process of getting packets of light, known as photons, to collide and make particles can be a complicated business, requiring a few tricks. But the new technology might enable a range of new experiments, which could lead to unexpected answers or uses.

    The tool is a collider for photons, the subatomic particles associated with visible light and other forms of electromagnetic radiation, such as radio waves and gamma rays. By crashing them head-on, the collider would turn the photons into electrons and their anti-matter counterparts, positrons. Calculations suggesting how this might work appear in the current issue of the journal Nature Photonics.

    The theory behind this was first proposed in 1934 by two American physicists, Gregory Breit and John Wheeler. But it wasn't until 1997 that scientists working at the Stanford Linear Accelerator Center (SLAC) in Stanford, Calif., were able to successfully carry out the first true photon-to-photon collision and create the two particles.

    They did it by using electrons to ricochet light back into itself. The team accelerated a beam of electrons to high energies, then blasted the beam with a laser. Some of the photons in the laser scattered off these electrons, traveling back toward the laser beam and picking up energy in the process. When these higher-energy photons collided with additional photons the laser was sending out, the collisions produced pairs of electrons and their antimatter counterparts, positrons.
}

\keywords{one, two, three, four, five}

%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

\begin{document}


\maketitle


\section{Introduction}

Converting light into matter may sound like alchemy, but it's a natural outcome of physics – one that scientists have been demonstrating to varying degrees for decades. Now, a team of European physicists is proposing a way to do it much more simply.

If the approach works as the researcher's initial calculations suggest, the results are unlikely immediately answer any vexing question, physicists say. The fundamental science behind the process of turning light to matter is already well understood. But it would be a new tool in physicists' toolkit.

Currently, the process of getting packets of light, known as photons, to collide and make particles can be a complicated business, requiring a few tricks. But the new technology might enable a range of new experiments, which could lead to unexpected answers or uses.

The tool is a collider for photons, the subatomic particles associated with visible light and other forms of electromagnetic radiation, such as radio waves and gamma rays. By crashing them head-on, the collider would turn the photons into electrons and their anti-matter counterparts, positrons. Calculations suggesting how this might work appear in the current issue of the journal Nature Photonics.

The theory behind this was first proposed in 1934 by two American physicists, Gregory Breit and John Wheeler. But it wasn't until 1997 that scientists working at the Stanford Linear Accelerator Center (SLAC) in Stanford, Calif., were able to successfully carry out the first true photon-to-photon collision and create the two particles.

They did it by using electrons to ricochet light back into itself. The team accelerated a beam of electrons to high energies, then blasted the beam with a laser. Some of the photons in the laser scattered off these electrons, traveling back toward the laser beam and picking up energy in the process. When these higher-energy photons collided with additional photons the laser was sending out, the collisions produced pairs of electrons and their antimatter counterparts, positrons.

\end{document}

The first page looks like this: enter image description here

1

After a lot of search and trial & errors, I figured out this (semi) solution: simply generate abstract and keywords manually, i.e., do not provide this `fields' in preamble. However, I added small preamble-snippet for changing margins to make abstract prettier. This will cause warning messages, but the output will look nicer. Here is the corrected code from the above:

\documentclass[doc,11pt,a4paper,natbib,floatsintext]{apa6}
\usepackage[german,serbian,american]{babel}
\usepackage[T1]{fontenc}
\usepackage{graphicx}
\usepackage{tabulary}
\usepackage{multirow}
\usepackage{rotating}
\usepackage{xspace}
\usepackage{color}
\usepackage{url}
\usepackage{times}
\usepackage{amssymb}
\usepackage{amsmath}
\usepackage{csquotes}

%-- Margins change
\def\changemargin#1#2{\list{}{\rightmargin#2\leftmargin#1}\item[]}
\let\endchangemargin=\endlist 

\shorttitle{Revision revisited}
\leftheader{Myname, Hername, Hisname, Hername, Hisname}

\title
    {Processing parts and a whole:
    \protect\\
    An information-theoretic approach to some interesting stuffs}
\fiveauthors
    {Myname Mysurname}{Hername Hersurname}{Hisname Hissurname}
    {Hername Hersurname}{Hisname Hissurname}
\fiveaffiliations
    {My affiliation at the University of something \&
        My second affiliation at the University of something else}
    {Her affiliation at the University of something}
    {His affiliation at the University of something}
    {Her affiliation at the University of something \&
        Her second affiliation at the University of something else}
    {His affiliation at the University of something \&
        His second affiliation at the University of something else}

\authornote{
    Please send correspondence to me: \\
    Email: first.author@something.edu \\ \ \\
    \noindent
    This research was supported some guys.
}

%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

\begin{document}


\maketitle

\vspace*{2\baselineskip}

\begin{changemargin}{2cm}{2cm}

    {\small{

    \begin{center}
        {\bf Abstract}
    \end{center}

    Converting light into matter may sound like alchemy, but it's a natural outcome
    of physics – one that scientists have been demonstrating to varying degrees for
    decades. Now, a team of European physicists is proposing a way to do it much
    more simply.

    If the approach works as the researcher's initial calculations suggest, the
    results are unlikely immediately answer any vexing question, physicists say. The
    fundamental science behind the process of turning light to matter is already
    well understood. But it would be a new tool in physicists' toolkit.

    Currently, the process of getting packets of light, known as photons, to collide
    and make particles can be a complicated business, requiring a few tricks. But
    the new technology might enable a range of new experiments, which could lead to
    unexpected answers or uses.

    The tool is a collider for photons, the subatomic particles associated with
    visible light and other forms of electromagnetic radiation, such as radio waves
    and gamma rays. By crashing them head-on, the collider would turn the photons
    into electrons and their anti-matter counterparts, positrons. Calculations
    suggesting how this might work appear in the current issue of the journal
    Nature Photonics.

    The theory behind this was first proposed in 1934 by two American physicists,
    Gregory Breit and John Wheeler. But it wasn't until 1997 that scientists
    working at the Stanford Linear Accelerator Center (SLAC) in Stanford, Calif.,
    were able to successfully carry out the first true photon-to-photon collision
    and create the two particles.

    They did it by using electrons to ricochet light back into itself. The team
    accelerated a beam of electrons to high energies, then blasted the beam with a
    laser. Some of the photons in the laser scattered off these electrons, traveling
    back toward the laser beam and picking up energy in the process. When these
    higher-energy photons collided with additional photons the laser was sending
    out, the collisions produced pairs of electrons and their antimatter
    counterparts, positrons.

    Keywords: one, two, three, four, five

    }}

\end{changemargin}

\vspace*{4\baselineskip}

\section{Introduction}

Converting light into matter may sound like alchemy, but it's a natural outcome
of physics – one that scientists have been demonstrating to varying degrees for
decades. Now, a team of European physicists is proposing a way to do it much
more simply.

If the approach works as the researcher's initial calculations suggest, the results
are unlikely immediately answer any vexing question, physicists say. The fundamental
science behind the process of turning light to matter is already well understood.
But it would be a new tool in physicists' toolkit.

Currently, the process of getting packets of light, known as photons, to collide
and make particles can be a complicated business, requiring a few tricks. But the
new technology might enable a range of new experiments, which could lead to
unexpected answers or uses.

The tool is a collider for photons, the subatomic particles associated with visible
light and other forms of electromagnetic radiation, such as radio waves and gamma
rays. By crashing them head-on, the collider would turn the photons into electrons
and their anti-matter counterparts, positrons. Calculations suggesting how this
might work appear in the current issue of the journal Nature Photonics.

The theory behind this was first proposed in 1934 by two American physicists,
Gregory Breit and John Wheeler. But it wasn't until 1997 that scientists working
at the Stanford Linear Accelerator Center (SLAC) in Stanford, Calif., were able to
successfully carry out the first true photon-to-photon collision and create the two
particles.

They did it by using electrons to ricochet light back into itself. The team
accelerated a beam of electrons to high energies, then blasted the beam with a
laser. Some of the photons in the laser scattered off these electrons, traveling
back toward the laser beam and picking up energy in the process. When these
higher-energy photons collided with additional photons the laser was sending out,
the collisions produced pairs of electrons and their antimatter counterparts,
positrons.

\end{document}

And now, the first page looks better (I think): enter image description here

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.