2

I recently started using biblatex and have an extensive bibliograpy file created with bibtex in mind. I compiled my bibliography and notice that InBook looses the book title. As can be seen in the image below only In: gets printed where the book title should be. Example of formatting

Here is the MWE I used to create this.

\documentclass[12pt,a4paper]{article}
\usepackage[utf8]{inputenc}
\usepackage[english]{babel}
\usepackage{csquotes}
\usepackage{pifont}
\usepackage[backend=biber,bibstyle=authoryear,citestyle=authoryear-comp,sorting=nyt,mincitenames=1,maxcitenames=2,url=false]{biblatex}
\addbibresource{test.bib}
\author{Minime}
\begin{document}
\parencite{Verwijst2013}
\printbibliography
\end{document}

And this is the format of the entry in the bib file:

@InBook{Verwijst2013,
  Title           = {Development of Sustainable Willow Short Rotation Forestry in Northern Europe},
  Author          = {Theo Verwijst and Anneli Lundkvist and Stina Edelfeldt and Johannes Albertsson},
  Chapter         = {19},
  Editor          = {Dr. Miodrag Darko Matovic},
  Pages           = {479--502},
  Publisher       = {INTECH open},
  Year            = {2013},
  Note            = {Published: April 30, 2013 under CC BY 3.0 license.},
  book            = {Biomass Now - Sustainable Growth and Use},
  Doi             = {10.5772/55072 },
  File            = {Verwijst2013.pdf:Blandat material/Verwijst2013.pdf:PDF}
}

Is there some special treatment by biblatex of InBook, or formatting that I am missing?

  • 3
    The name of the field is "booktitle" not "book". Check the biblatex documentation about the available field names. – Ulrike Fischer Aug 14 '15 at 7:53
  • On a completely unrelated note: Normally academic titles and degrees are not given in the bibliography, so editor = {Miodrag Darko Matovic}, would be preferred over editor = {Dr. Miodrag Darko Matovic},. You also have a space in your DOI field, though this might not have any impact, it looks odd, make it read doi = {10.5772/55072}. Plus, you might think about whether the entry type @incollection might not be better suited to what you have here (I, for one, would definitely prefer @incollection over @inbook here) – moewe Aug 14 '15 at 8:13
  • @UlrikeFischer Thankyou. Of course that remediates it. What a stupid misstake. Book is not even a valid bibtex field :/ – niclas ericsson Aug 14 '15 at 8:19
  • 1
    Per the biblatex documentation a @inbook refers to "A part of a book which forms a self-contained unit with its own title", p. 8; while @incollection is for "A contribution to a collection which forms a self-contained unit with a distinct author and title. The author refers to the title, the editor to the booktitle, i.e., the title of the collection.", p. 9. – moewe Aug 14 '15 at 8:21
  • 1
    Nope, maybe I should have also discussed what distinguishes a, @book "[a] single-volume book with one or more authors where the authors share credit for the work as a whole", from a @collection, "[a] single-volume collection with multiple, self-contained contributions by distinct authors which have their own title. The work as a whole has no overall author but it will usually have an editor."; that is the main point here: "Biomass Now - Sustainable Growth and Use" is definitely a @collection. Naturally @inbook just is a part of a @book and @incollection a part of a @collection. – moewe Aug 14 '15 at 8:27
1

The name of the field is booktitle not book. Check the biblatex documentation about the available field names. It contains a long and useful list.

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.