First, I should admit I'm still fairly new to LaTeX, but I love it so far, even if it can be a bit demanding at times. Regarding my issue, I searched here in Stack Exchange and within the documentation that can be found for the CTAN packages I use (not to mention my many Web searches), but to no avail. After updating my packages with no luck, I even started digging through the biblatex and biblatex-apa files until I realized I was getting in over my head. I took other steps as well, but mostly I want any potential helpers to know that I gave a decent effort to figure this out on my own.

So, here I am. Anyway, my problem is that biblatex (more specifically, biblatex-apa) is not correctly formatting the note fields of reference entries. I've provided a working example of the LaTeX document and an example of the output below.

\documentclass[noextraspace, man, 12pt]{apa6}


\shorttitle{Short title} 
\author{Name N. Namey}



Blah blah blah. \cite{Texa2013}. $\SI{10}{\micro\ohm\per banana}$


\section{ }
% tables
\section{ }
% figures


incorrect APA reference

Notice the "Note" in the reference entry above. The corresponding biblatex entry is below.

author = {{Texas Instruments}},
title = {{LM741} operational amplifier},
year = {2013},
note = {Note},
url = {http://www.ti.com/lit/ds/symlink/lm741.pdf},

As far as I understand the 6th edition of the Publication Manual of the APA and the CTAN documentation, the reference should look closer to the image below (ignoring the font change), where the parenthetical note field immediately follows the title and the right parenthesis is immediately followed by a period.

correct APA reference

That's all I got for now! Help?

*Edit: Slight changes for clarity.

  • \DeclareFieldFormat{note}{\mkbibparens{#1}}? Commented Nov 3, 2015 at 16:23
  • Almost! After adding that to the preamble of my document, it added parentheses to "Note" such that it is now "(Note)," but it still comes after the period of the title field when it should be "inside" of the title field.
    – floydoom
    Commented Nov 3, 2015 at 16:32
  • 1
    Is it really a note? When it comes before the period, it makes it look like it should just be part of the title. The use of the note field varies a lot between entry types, particularly in the rather messy APA guidelines. I'd also be careful in applying field formats globaly like that as it will change things in all notes fields in any entry type. Use the type specifier \DeclareFieldFormat[report]{note}{ ...}.
    – PLK
    Commented Nov 3, 2015 at 16:42
  • I'm actually not 100% sure on whether it should be a note or not (properly categorizing "gray-area" documents can be tricky with APA guidelines). I was eventually going to make the note something like "Component specification sheet" or "Component data sheet," in order to describe the document's type. Also, thanks for the tip to use the type specifier.
    – floydoom
    Commented Nov 3, 2015 at 16:45
  • @PLK I just reviewed the APA Publication Manual, and I'm under the impression that there should also be a note similar to "(Tech. Rep.)." I think I remember also reading something about that in the biblatex documentation, but after a brief search, I couldn't find anything about it.
    – floydoom
    Commented Nov 3, 2015 at 17:07

1 Answer 1


There has been a discussion in the comments about the merits of this venture.

Maybe you are just looking for the titleaddon field. It comes wrapped in square brackets though, so you might want


If you insist on using the note field, an ad-hoc solution is


  • Hey, @moewe, thanks for the simple work-around! To recap, I added your first suggestion to my .tex document (i.e., I added the DeclareFieldFormat command), added a titleaddon field to my .bib entry, deleted the note field from my .bib entry, deleted auxiliary files, and recompiled everything, and the PDF now appears as desired. It's so weird because I swear this worked correctly before, but regardless, your fix is more than sufficient. Great thinking!
    – floydoom
    Commented Nov 5, 2015 at 20:57
  • Out of curiosity, I tried your second solution, too. It also works as long as you (i.e., the "general you") leave \DeclareFieldFormat{note}{\mkbibparens{#1}} in the preamble. Again, good job!
    – floydoom
    Commented Nov 5, 2015 at 21:12
  • @floydoom Mhhh, \DeclareFieldFormat[report]{note}{\mkbibparens{#1}} should be enough in the second solution. And in an example file I just ran was enough. The more general \DeclareFieldFormat{note}{\mkbibparens{#1}} was not necessary.
    – moewe
    Commented Nov 6, 2015 at 6:02
  • Oops! How foolish of me, @moewe. I copied only the second part of your second solution, completely missing the first command. Good catch. :)
    – floydoom
    Commented Nov 6, 2015 at 16:39

You must log in to answer this question.

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