0

I have my bibliography organized into sections (Papers, Articles, Technical Reports, Books, Online). For example:

Papers:

[4] Paper x

[12] Paper y

etc

Articles:

[2] Article x

[16] Article y

etc

Books:

[1] Book x

[7] Book y

etc

etc

Now the problem, as you can see, is that the references are not sorted in each section. What I would like to do is something like:

Papers:

[1] Paper x

[2] Paper y

etc

Articles:

[3] Article x

[4] Article y

etc

Books:

[5] Book x

[6] Book y

etc

etc

Here is how I'm doing the sectioning:

\printbibheading
\nobibintoc

\printbibliography[heading=npbbib,type=inproceedings,title={Papers}]
\printbibliography[heading=npbbib,type=article,title={Articles}]
\printbibliography[heading=npbbib,type=report,title={Technical Reports}]
\printbibliography[heading=npbbib,type=book,title={Books}]
\printbibliography[heading=npbbib,type=inbook,title={In Books}]
\printbibliography[heading=npbbib,type=misc,title={Online}]
3
  • 2
    Use the option defernumbers=true? If that does not help, please prepare a short but fully compilable MWE with which we can play around.
    – moewe
    Commented Oct 10, 2016 at 13:16
  • Thank you. It worked. \usepackage[defernumbers=true]{biblatex}
    – OneZed
    Commented Oct 10, 2016 at 14:30
  • See also biblatex - Consistent numbering in split bibliographies
    – moewe
    Commented Oct 10, 2016 at 14:40

1 Answer 1

1

Set the defernumbers option to true. That way the numbers are assigned when the lists are printed. In your case that gives continuous numbering. See also biblatex advises defernumbers=true but details of references may be very hard to find for a more through explanation of the option (and its drawbacks in certain scenarios).

\usepackage[defernumbers=true]{biblatex}
1
  • Note that up to an including version 3.6 (the current version) you will get a warning Package biblatex Warning: Setting 'defernumbers=true' recommended. if you use a numeric setup with split bibliographies. If I understand correctly this warning is going go be dropped from 3.7 onwards following a short discussion sparked by the question linked in the answer (you'll find the links there).
    – moewe
    Commented Oct 10, 2016 at 14:45

You must log in to answer this question.

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