Is there any source where I can find the required fields in my bibliography file to refer to a chapter within a book? I found @inbook, but I cannot find the fields (author=, chapter=... ). In general it would be nice to know what are all the possible fields for each type of reference i.e. @article, @book, @unpublished and so forth.
5 Answers
I think the best policy is never to talk of chapter numbers in the reflist at all, and move talk of chapter numbers, on the few occasions they are needed, to the citation in the main text. But of course you can't always choose. So, if you must use a particular Bibtex style that uses chapters, then include them in your *.bib
files, and avoid Bibtex styles that allow you to refer to chapter numbers in the reference list whenever you can.
Notes on citation style
Citation styles vary, but IMO the cleanest policy is the following:
- Do not refer to chapters in the reference list (i.e., what Bibtex calls the bibliography, but the
{thebibliography}
environment calls the References section/chapter), and refer only to page numbers in references for articles in journals and collected articles; - Citations of chapters and page numbers within works cited in the reflist should consist of the identifier of the work cited in the reflist, together with the specification of the part of the work of interest;
- Volume numbers are trickier... I could say more, but for the sake of brevity, I won't.
This policy is followed by The Chicago Manual of Style and the Publication Manual of the APA, and is supported by the {natbib}
and {apalike}
Bibtex styles.
Example
Reflist
- Boolos, G., 1971/1998. 'The iterative conception of set'. In R.C. Jeffrey (ed.), Logic, Logic, and Logic, Harvard University Press, pp. 13-29. First published, The Journal of Philosophy, 68:215-232.
- Johnstone, P.T., 1987. Notes on Logic and Set Theory. Cambridge University Press.
(We are interested in chapter one of the collected articles of George Boolos, a fact we never mention, since we have the title of the chapter and the page numbers in the reflist. We are interested in three chapters of Peter Johnstone's work, which we don't mention in the reflist, but do in the citation in the main text).
Citations in main text
The cumulative hierarchy had a long prior history, but was not taken seriously as the intellectual foundation of Zermelo-Fränkel set theory until the landmark work of Boolos (1971). In the following, we shall assume the treatment of ZFC given by Johnstone (1987, chapters 5-7).
-
2My background is in the humanities where I frequently encounter anthologies that are a collection of essays, each written by a different author. My discipline typically requires that each chapter I use be cited in the bibliography almost as if it were a journal article, including with the page range. This style is explicitly supported by the Chicago Manual of Style. The OP asked for help and you responded by preaching your opinion that is not helpful nor correct for people in my discipline. You made the mistake of universalizing the subjective. If I may: next time preach less and answer the Q.– RobNov 4, 2021 at 11:29
Don't use @inbook
ever for anything. Use one of the following, depending on the situation:
@book
and\cite[Chapter~5]{foo}
for a monograph.@incollection
for a book in which each chapter has a different author. Then the relevant fields arebooktitle=
andtitle=
; this is similar to@inproceedings
.
-
11In some rare cases, @inbook can be appropriate, e.g. for an introduction by author X in a book by author Y. With biblatex, @inbook is also useful for articles in a volume of collected works by one author.– domwassNov 10, 2010 at 11:03
-
29It would help if you edited your answer to include some explanation. "Don't use inbook, ever" is much less useful than "Don't use inbook, ever, because (...)". As it stands, this is just your personal opinion, with no facts, evidence, justification, or other information to back up your opinion.– D.W.Oct 23, 2014 at 22:32
-
14@JukkaSuomela, nonetheless, my point stands. As it is, this is just opinion, with no justification or explanation given. (Incidentally, people vote for all sorts of reasons. I've seen incorrect answers and bad advice upvoted many times on other sites I participate in, so I happen to know first-hand that a high vote count is not a fool-proof sign that the answer is good. Surely there is a better justification for your answer than the vote total.)– D.W.Oct 23, 2014 at 22:40
-
15I was hoping to find a comment an explanation on why should one never used
@inbook
ever. Why should one not use it? Is there something wrong with it or is it just badly supported by the common styles? Feb 8, 2017 at 1:22 -
10
For the various fields, I usually check the BibTeX article in Wikipedia. I believe you want @inbook
to cite a chapter. Normally, I'll just write \cite[Chapter~5]{foo}
, though.
From the Wikipedia link, the required fields for @inbook
are: author/editor, title, chapter/pages, publisher, year and the optional fields are volume, series, address, edition, month, note, key.
-
@inpart
? I've never seen that one. Don't you mean@inbook
as the OP stated? One ofchapter
andpages
is required for that. Aug 30, 2010 at 8:43 -
Didn't find @inpart in Wikipedia, I'm using @inbook with a note= to include the author of the chapter. I will not use \cite[Chapter~5]{foo} because I'm unsure 'bout how this affects the style of a particular journal. Cheers!– TrevisAug 30, 2010 at 8:58
-
Yes, yes I did. I'm not sure where I got
@inpart
from. Hasty typing, I suppose. Will fix.– TH.Aug 30, 2010 at 9:15 -
5@Trevis: if you have different authors for different chapters, you are better off using
@incollection
, unless you have a case where a book with a primary author includes a chapter/appendix by someone else, in which case your solution will give clearer information. Aug 30, 2010 at 10:44 -
@TH. I've slightly edited your answer hoping to improve it, and keep the relevant information up front. Of course feel free to revert my edits if you feel they misrepresent your original answer. Aug 30, 2010 at 11:08
There are quite a few good answers here, but I wanted to share what I do. First, I use this site as a reference for what each entry type is intended to be used for. Here are useful excerpts:
incollection: A part of a book having its own title.
inbook: A part of a book, e.g., a chapter, section, or whatever and/or a range of pages.
book: A book with an explicit publisher.
crossref: The database key of the entry being cross-referenced
What I find useful for organization and modularity (e.g. if I were to cite multiple titled chapters from the same book):
@incollection{tucker1964extension, % A chapter in a book
title = {The extension of factor analysis to
three-dimensional matrices}, % Unique for book
author = {Tucker, Ledyard R.}, % Unique for book
pages = {110--127}, % Unique for book
crossref = {ContribMathPsych1964} % Crossref
}
@book{ContribMathPsych1964, % The book itself
year = {1964}, % Unique for book
editor = {Frederiksen, Norman O. and % Unique for book
Gulliksen, Harold},
title = {Contributions to Mathematical Psychology}, % Redundant for book
booktitle = {Contributions to Mathematical Psychology}, % Redundant for book
author = {Tucker, Ledyard R. and others}, % Unique for book
publisher = {Holt, Rinehardt and Winston}, % Unique for book
address = {New York, New York, USA} % Unique for book
}
The crossref
in the incollection
entry links the chapter to the book so redundant details (asides from booktitle
/title
) are not necessary. This produces the following citation:
- Ledyard R. Tucker. 1964. The extension of factor analysis to three-dimensional matrices. In Contributions to Mathematical Psychology, Norman O. Frederiksen and Harold Gulliksen (Eds.). Holt, Rinehardt and Winston, New York, New York, USA, 110–127
This can alternatively be written using BibTeX strings to reduce redundancies, which is especially useful if e.g. you have multiple years of the same conference or multiple versions of the same book.
@string{ContribMathPsych = {Contributions to Mathematical Psychology}}
@incollection{tucker1964extension, % A chapter in a book
title = {The extension of factor analysis to
three-dimensional matrices}, % Unique for book
author = {Tucker, Ledyard R.}, % Unique for book
pages = {110--127}, % Unique for book
crossref = {ContribMathPsych1964} % Crossref
}
@book{ContribMathPsych1964, % The book itself
year = {1964}, % Unique for book
editor = {Frederiksen, Norman O. and % Unique for book
Gulliksen, Harold},
title = ContribMathPsych, % Redundant for book
booktitle = ContribMathPsych, % Redundant for book
author = {Tucker, Ledyard R. and others}, % Unique for book
publisher = {Holt, Rinehardt and Winston}, % Unique for book
address = {New York, New York, USA} % Unique for book
}
-
4
-
1
It should be noted that biblatex uses the @inbook
type in a different way than traditional BibTeX, namely
for a self-contained part of a book with its own title [...]. It relates to
@book
just like@incollection
relates to@collection
. [p. 28 of the biblatex manual]
To give a practical example, this type is useful for an introductory essay to a legal commentary.
JabRef
), you can let the program keep track of what possible fields are.