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?

16
  • 3
    The name of the field is "booktitle" not "book". Check the biblatex documentation about the available field names. Aug 14, 2015 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, 2015 at 8:13
  • @UlrikeFischer Thankyou. Of course that remediates it. What a stupid misstake. Book is not even a valid bibtex field :/ Aug 14, 2015 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, 2015 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, 2015 at 8:27

1 Answer 1

3

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.

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .