2

My understanding is that \usepackage[super]{natbib} should result in citations in a superscript format, but this doesn't appear to be working for me in the following code:

\documentclass{article}[10pt]
\usepackage[super]{natbib}
\bibpunct{[}{]}{,}{n}{}{;}

\begin{document}
\title{Debug Document}
\date{}
\maketitle

cite: \cite{mycite}

cite: \textsuperscript{\cite{mycite}}

\begin{thebibliography}{}
\bibitem{mycite}
Authors.
\newblock {Title}.
\newblock {\em Journal}, 2001.
\end{thebibliography}

\end{document}

The output I get is the following:

Generated PDF

Note that the first cite is not actually a superscript. Wrapping the cite in \textsuperscript makes it (hackishly) do what I want, but I'd prefer to figure out what is actually wrong with natbib.

On a previous machine (which I no longer have access to) this worked just fine, so I'm wondering if it is some library incompatibility, but I have no idea how to debug such a thing.

1
3

Here is the fixed version of your MWE:

\documentclass[10pt]{article}
\usepackage[super]{natbib}
\bibpunct{[}{]}{,}{s}{}{;}

\begin{document}
\title{Debug Document}
\date{}
\maketitle

cite: \cite{mycite}

cite: \textsuperscript{\cite{mycite}}

\begin{thebibliography}{9}
\bibitem{mycite}
Authors.
\newblock {Title}.
\newblock {\em Journal}, 2001.
\end{thebibliography}

\end{document}

You have to use:

\bibpunct{[}{]}{,}{s}{}{;}

instead of:

\bibpunct{[}{]}{,}{n}{}{;}

i.e. n should be replaced by s in the fourth option of \bibpunct command.

2
  • 2
    +1. Since s is specified in the fourth argument of \bibpunct, it seems unnecessary to also specify the option super when natbib is loaded initially.
    – Mico
    Jul 7 '16 at 6:21
  • Thanks! Actually, the original .cls file that I'm using (didn't show in the post to keep things minimal) used the a option to \bibpunct, which is clearly wrong. Yet this worked on the previous machine I was using. So my best guess is that previous versions of natbib ignored that argument when super is specified (though I figured it wasn't frequently updated). But now, yes, I agree with @Mico, specifying super as an option to natbib is pointless if it also needs to be specified to \bibpunct.
    – Kirk
    Jul 7 '16 at 17:12

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.