When citing an entry set in biblatex, the whole set appears as an item (\cite{set1}). I am wondering, is there an option to show each member of the set as individual item? Namely, same effect as \cite{key1, key2, ...}, but just by citing set name once.

  • 1
    Welcome to TeX.SX!! It is better to post a full minimal working example that starts with a \documentclass command, has a minimal preamble and then \begin{document}...\end{document}. Unless the problem is a compilation error, the code should compile and be as small as possible to demonstrate your problem. This makes it much easier for people to help you --- and much ore likely that they will! It would certainly help if you gave more detail about what your problem is and what you want to achieve and if you are using biblatex, bibtex, ... – Andrew Feb 23 '16 at 11:37
  • From the manual's description: An entry set is a group of entries which are cited as a single reference and listed as a single item in the bibliography. (113) With BibTeX as backend, citing any member of the set will include all of them. But that is considered a limitation rather than a feature. It sounds to me as if this is an XY problem. A minimal example would help people suggest alternative strategies. (Maybe you want related or something like that? Hard to say.) – cfr Feb 23 '16 at 12:10
  • 1
    You can do \newcommand{\myreflist}{key1,key2,...} and used \cite{\myreflist}. I think there are biblatex commands that would allow you to construct the key list from the key for the entry set too. – Andrew Swann Feb 23 '16 at 13:09
  • @AndrewSwann Your approach sounds like a good answer to me, would you mind jotting it down in the answer section? The problem with trying to recover the item list from a set is that once the set is defined citations of the members trigger the set citation and thus the compact output in the bibliography. – moewe Feb 23 '16 at 14:41
  • @moewe OK - Done. – Andrew Swann Feb 23 '16 at 15:38

From the comments it turns out that entry sets are not the relevant concept, and you are just looking for a shorthand to list several references. Simple LaTeX macros are sufficient for this. Just define


and then you can use \cite{\myreflist}, etc., as you wish to cite these entries.

Here is an example demonstrating that features such citation sorting still work.

Sample output





Here some citations \cite{\myreflist}.


  • Thank you very much. I think I did not state my question clear enough. I like the concept of entry sets and always use entry sets to group references. With entry sets the group information is saved in the bib file. So I don't need to remember and repeat inputing these information again and again in each individual Tex file. – michael morgan Feb 23 '16 at 17:02
  • \newcommand does give me the correct format, but not the way I want to achieve. If I use \newcommand, that means I need input the group information again (by listing key1, key2, ...). These information is already in the bib file (by defined entry sets). If all the entries in an entry set must be listed as a single item, is there an alternative way to manage reference grouping in reference database file? – michael morgan Feb 23 '16 at 17:02

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.