13
\documentclass[authoryear]{elsarticle}
\begin{document}
\begin{frontmatter}
\title{A Very Clever Paper Title}

\author[add1]{Author1}
\ead{email1@domain.ca}
\author[add2, add3]{Author2}
\ead{email2@domain.ca}
\author[add2, add3]{Author3}
\ead{email3@domain.ca}


\address[add1]{Department of Redundancy Department}
\address[add2]{Centre for Study of Things}
\address[add3]{Department of Interests}

\end{frontmatter}
\end{document}

In the above case, how can I merge affiliations for Author2 and Author3 if they are equal?

18
  • Spaces after the comma in the optional argument of \author are not supported by class elsarticle. ☹
  • Also the class does not generate a rerun warning, the letters for the affiliations are not yet known in the first LaTeX run.

A. Example without merging

\documentclass[authoryear]{elsarticle}
\begin{document}
\begin{frontmatter}
\title{A Very Clever Paper Title}

\author[add1]{Author1}
\ead{email1@domain.ca}
\author[add2,add3]{Author2}
\ead{email2@domain.ca}
\author[add2,add3]{Author3}
\ead{email3@domain.ca}

\address[add1]{Department of Redundancy Department}
\address[add2]{Centre for Study of Things}
\address[add3]{Department of Interests}
\end{frontmatter}
\end{document}

Result A

B. Two affiliations in one line

\author[add1]{Author1}
\ead{email1@domain.ca}
\author[add2]{Author2}
\ead{email2@domain.ca}
\author[add2]{Author3}
\ead{email3@domain.ca}

\address[add1]{Department of Redundancy Department}
\address[add2]{Centre for Study of Things; Department of Interests}

Result B

  • Disadvantage: The second affiliation in the line gets lost visually. It is not clear, that the both authors have two affiliations.

C. Affiliations in two lines

\author[add1]{Author1}
\ead{email1@domain.ca}
\author[add2]{Author2}
\ead{email2@domain.ca}
\author[add2]{Author3}
\ead{email3@domain.ca}

\address[add1]{Department of Redundancy Department}
\address[add2]{%
  \begin{tabular}[t]{@{}l@{}}
    Centre for Study of Things\\
     Department of Interests 
  \end{tabular}% 
}

Result C

  • Disadvantage: IMHO better than the previous variant, but it is not clear at the first glance that there are two affiliations under "b" and that both authors have two affiliations.

Summary: I prefer the first version A, clear and simple.

| improve this answer | |
  • Thanks @Heiko Oberdiek for very helpful answer. I do a have a similar question here. Would highly appreciate if you have a look on this and provide any answer. Thanks – MYaseen208 Apr 15 '16 at 16:20

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.