# EID bib entry causes duplicate page numbers in citation with biblatex

ADS paper service usually provides the EID entry as well as the pages entry in their bibtex files. Both entries generally contain the page number of an article. Usually this doesn't seem to cause any issues. However, when using \fullcite{} from biblatex both entries are printed resulting in duplicate page numbers in the citation. Is there a way to suppress printing the EID with \fullcite?

Full example:

\documentclass{article}
\usepackage[backend=biber,]{biblatex}
\usepackage{filecontents}
\begin{filecontents}{\jobname.bib}
@ARTICLE{eisenstein2011,
author = {{Eisenstein}, D.~J. and {Weinberg}, D.~H. and {Agol}, E. and
{Aihara}, H. and {Allende Prieto}, C. and {Anderson}, S.~F. and
{Arns}, J.~A. and {Aubourg}, {\'E}. and {Bailey}, S. and
{Balbinot}, E. and et al.},
title = "{SDSS-III: Massive Spectroscopic Surveys of the Distant Universe,
the Milky Way, and Extra-Solar Planetary Systems}",
journal = {Astrophysical Journal},
archivePrefix = "arXiv",
eprint = {1101.1529},
primaryClass = "astro-ph.IM",
keywords = {cosmology: observations, Galaxy: evolution, planets and
satellites: detection, surveys},
year = 2011,
month = sep,
volume = 142,
eid = {72},
pages = {72},
doi = {10.1088/0004-6256/142/3/72},
adsnote = {Provided by the SAO/NASA Astrophysics Data System}
}
\end{filecontents}

\begin{document}
\fullcite{eisenstein2011}

\end{document}

• Welcome to TeX.SE. Please tell us exactly how you're loading biblatex at present. And, to cut down on pointless guesswork, please post an example of a bibliographic entry with an eid field. – Mico Mar 2 '16 at 20:45
• Maybe \AtEveryCitekey{\clearfield{eid}} can help you. – moewe Mar 3 '16 at 8:08
• @moewe This did the trick, great! If you write an answer I can accept the solution. – frixhax Mar 3 '16 at 12:31
• related question: tex.stackexchange.com/questions/445888/… – Felipe G. Nievinski Apr 20 at 5:36

Articles like this are a bit of a grey area, I would say that in this case only eid = {72} is correct and pages = {72} is a bit misleading, but you could feel the exact opposite.

Anyway, you can get rid of the eid in citations with

\AtEveryCitekey{\clearfield{eid}}


in the bibliography that is

\AtEveryBibitem{\clearfield{eid}}


To get rid of the field entirely you can use Biber

\DeclareSourcemap{
\maps[datatype=bibtex]{
\map{
\step[fieldset=eid, null]
}
}
}


With

\AtEveryCitekey{\iffieldsequal{eid}{pages}{\clearfield{pages}}{}}
\AtEveryBibitem{\iffieldsequal{eid}{pages}{\clearfield{pages}}{}}


we delete the pages only if the content of the pages and eid field coincide.

• Thanks, perfect. In theory I feel the same way, but it seems that pages is much more common and if both are used together it can cause issues. – frixhax Mar 3 '16 at 14:07
• @frixhax It is a grey area. I'd say eid is the "correct" field, but many (.bst) styles don't support that and can only deal with pages, so BibTeX export still often goes with pages. That is probably why pages is so much more prevalent. (Maybe you like the code from the edit.) – moewe Mar 3 '16 at 14:28
• Uh, that's nice. Thanks! I noticed in very few cases that the eid entry differs from pages and I'm not sure why and what to prefer in these cases. – frixhax Mar 3 '16 at 14:31
• @frixhax That is something to be decided on a case-by-case basis, I believe. Maybe you can double check with the journal website and the information they provide there. (I would be curious to see an example, do you happen to have one at hand?) – moewe Mar 3 '16 at 14:34
• Yes, I guess so. – frixhax Mar 3 '16 at 14:34