# Biblatex Incollection entry with no author

Using biblatex authortitle I have an entry from a dictionary which has no author. In the citations is appearing using the title first for full citations (which is required by my style guide), and the editor's name for abbreviated ones (which is incorrect):

First citation: “Emotional Intelligence”. In: Encyclopaedic Dictionary of Psychology. Ed. by Graham Davey. Oxford: Routledge, 2005, pp. 306–307.

Subsequent citations: Davey, “Emotional Intelligence”.

In the bibliography, it is appearing as in the first citation, but sorted by the editor's name. So:

“Emotional Intelligence”. In: Encyclopaedic Dictionary of Psychology. Ed. by Graham Davey. Oxford: Routledge, 2005, pp. 306–307.

Davis, K. et al. “The Theory of Multiple Intelligences”. In: Cambridge Hand- book of Intelligence. Ed. by R. J. Sternberg and S. B. Kaufman. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2011, pp. 485–503.

The style needed is according to the first (full) citation, listed by the entry title. See, for example, http://utas.libguides.com/content.php?pid=27520&sid=202467

I can specify sorting in the bibtex entry so that article appears among the E entries, but then the abbreviated citations will be unhelpful (the reader will look among the Ds for it).

If specifying the sorting under "e" a solution is to manually use \fullcite for that title each time. That introduces a large chance for operator error. Is there a way to make the full citation required at every occurrence for this entry?

The only other solution I can think of is to refashion the incollection entry so that the editor is first, if there is no author, that would make the first listing and bibliography it fit the abbreviated entry. (Not really the required style, but closer to it than listing the encyclopaedia only, rather than the article.)

Are there other solutions which keep with the style required?

TIA

MWE

\documentclass[a4paper]{article}

\usepackage[english]{babel}
\usepackage[style=authortitle,natbib=true,citestyle=verbose,backend=biber]{biblatex}

\usepackage{filecontents}
\begin{filecontents}{\jobname.bib}
@Incollection{Davis2011TToMI,
Title                    = {The Theory of Multiple Intelligences},
Address                  = {New York},
Author                   = {K. Davis and Christodoulou, J. A. and S. Seider and Gardner, H.},
Booktitle                = {Cambridge Handbook of Intelligence},
Pages                    = {485--503},
Publisher                = {Cambridge University Press},
Year                     = {2011},
Editor                   = {R. J. Sternberg and S. B. Kaufman},
}

@Incollection{Davey2005EI,
Title                    = {Emotional Intelligence},
Booktitle                = {Encyclopaedic Dictionary of Psychology},
Pages                    = {306--307},
Publisher                = {Routledge},
Year                     = {2005},
Editor                   = {Davey, Graham},
}

\end{filecontents}

\begin{document}

First cite\autocite{Davey2005EI}

Other cite\autocite{Davis2011TToMI}

Second cite\autocite{Davey2005EI}

\printbibliography

\end{document}

• What about using the booktitle in such cases? Sep 4 '14 at 5:56
• The @incollection type is "a self-contained unit with a distinct author", so I think you are misusing it. Also you are actually citing a part of a book and I don't think that such a part should get its own bibliography entry. The document should use something like "the article 'Emotional Intelligence' in \cite{encyclopedia} says ...". You could use biblatex to manage the titles of such parts but this should be separated from the normal bibliography entries. Sep 4 '14 at 7:54
• Thanks for the input. In my experience it's fairly common for dictionary entries to be listed in bibliographies. The standard I have learned is that if the article has an author, then it is listed under that, but if not, then it should be under the article title. The incollection type seemed to best fit that purpose, and apart from entries with no author works perfectly. Sep 4 '14 at 8:53
• I have no idea if it is "common", but I don't find it logical. Would you make an entry for a chapter or a section of a book? If not then why for a much smaller unit like an entry of a dictionary? Sep 4 '14 at 12:04
• Yes, actually. If the chapter is by another author. Logical to you or not, it's how it is handled in the humanities (I mean no offence). The difference is between a book with an author or an editor. Multi-author works is exactly what the incollection/inbook entries seem to be for. I have many such entries in my bibliography, only a few are dictionary articles, and so do not have authors. You say in your initial comment that biblatex could handle the entries differently. How? Sep 4 '14 at 12:52

The proper type in biblatex for a reference work is reference, and for the item in the reference work, inreference. But it would be best to refer to a standard for bibliographic style, such as the Chicago Manual of Style, since this is a matter of convention, not logic.

Chicago recommends citing dictionary entries in the text or footnote only as Dictionary, s.v. "entry", and I think this is the best practice when there is no author credited for the entry (and where the article is as short as this one).

In biblatex, this would be \autocite[s.v. Emotional Intelligence'']{Davey2005}. Davey2005 would be the @reference entry for the whole reference work, not just the cited article.

(If you are using Chicago style or do not have a style guide, consider using biblatex-chicago as it will produce results more consistent with usage in humanities writing).

\documentclass[a4paper]{article}

\usepackage[english]{babel}
\usepackage{csquotes} % should be used with biblatex + babel
\usepackage[style=authortitle,natbib=true,citestyle=verbose,backend=biber]{biblatex}

\usepackage{filecontents}
\begin{filecontents}{\jobname.bib}
@Incollection{Davis2011TToMI,
Title                    = {The Theory of Multiple Intelligences},
Address                  = {New York},
Author                   = {K. Davis and Christodoulou, J. A. and S. Seider and Gardner, H.},
Booktitle                = {Cambridge Handbook of Intelligence},
Pages                    = {485--503},
Publisher                = {Cambridge University Press},
Year                     = {2011},
Editor                   = {R. J. Sternberg and S. B. Kaufman},
}

@Reference{Davey:Psych,
Title                = {Encyclopaedic Dictionary of Psychology},
Editor                   = {Davey, Graham},
Publisher                = {Routledge},
Year                     = {2005}
}

\end{filecontents}

\begin{document}

First cite\autocite[s.v.~\mkbibquote{EmotionalIntelligence}]{Davey:Psych}

Other cite\autocite{Davis2011TToMI}

Second cite\autocite[s.v.~\mkbibquote{EmotionalIntelligence}]{Davey:Psych}

\printbibliography

\end{document}


• Thanks for the answer. As I read the biblatex manual, the reference/inreference entries are treated as aliases for collection/incollection, so all you are doing is listing the whole work and changing how the entry is cited. Maybe I'm not being clear, I'll edit the question to explain. Sep 4 '14 at 21:08
• @penguinpreferred: (in)reference is now an alias for (in)collection but you or a style could change this so it make sense (and doesn't do any harm) to use it for dictionaries. Beside this Andrew is citing the entry as I would do it. Sep 6 '14 at 9:21
• Yes, that makes sense. I'll use (in)reference where it's more appropriate, thanks. I understand about Andrew's answer, that's why I edited the question---our style is specific in this case. So while his answer was elegant, it didn't quite fit my needs. Thanks. Sep 6 '14 at 9:32

Adding useditor = false to the options field of the specific entry forces biblatex to sort and list by title (see also p. 61 of the biblatex docs).

@incollection{Davey2005EI,
Title                    = {Emotional Intelligence},