# How to Write Names of Multiple Authors with Shared Affiliation in ACM 2017 Template?

I am using ACM 2017 template for proceedings and want to write names of four authors with the same affiliation. I have looked at similar questions like this, but it looks like some of the commands are not available in the new template (e.g. \numberofauthors). How should I write all authors' names with the same affiliation in the new template?

The problem with writing manuals is that nobody reads them...

I thought I covered this in ACM manual. Here is what I wrote:

You may have several authors with the same afifliation, different affiliations or overlapping affiliations (author A1 is affiliated with institutions I 1 and I 2 , while author A2 is affiliated with I 2 only, and author A3 is affiliated with I 1 and I 3 , . . . ). The recommended solution is to put the \affiliation commands after each author, possibly repeating them:

 \author{...}
\orcid{...}
\affiliation{...}
\affiliation{...}
\email{...}
\author{...}
\orcid{...}
\affiliation{...}
\email{...}
\author{...}
\orcid{...}
\affiliation{...}
\affiliation{...}
\email{...}


In some cases when several authors share the same affiliation you may try to save the space using the format

 \author{...}
\email{...}
\author{...}
\email{...}
\affiliation{...}


However, this format is not generally recommended.

• Well, it looks exactly like the specs given by ACM editors. If you want something else, you'd need to convince them rather than me. – Boris Jan 22 '17 at 6:32
• @Boris Thanks. But I want to point out doing the latter way will cause author name to pile up and produce long author columns, which does not look good and consumes space. I guess the template will look better if multiple authors are listed in the same line (and change line only when single line doesn't fit all names). – zaxliu Feb 17 '17 at 8:16
• Well, this is what AMS wanted... – Boris Feb 17 '17 at 12:30
• @Boris I just ran into the same problem. I better would go back to the AMS with this. Because if people don't like it they will go with stuff like the non official answer in this question. Basically introducing wrong semantics. There is the need to somehow specify the Authors and Affiliatiations seperately and just link them (e.g. with footnote style marks). – loomi Jun 6 '17 at 13:28
• @Boris What is the recommended way for sharing \additionalaffiliation among multiple authors? – Vincent Apr 1 at 14:03

This may not be official, but it looks good:

   \author{Author1, author2, ... author n}
\affiliation{
\institution{place}
\city{town}
\state{state}
\postcode{5 positive integers}
}
\email{email1@domain1.com, ... , emailn@domainn.com }

• Will produce wrong citation format if they are the last few authors - won't see the "and". – zaxliu Feb 17 '17 at 4:17
• @zaxliu This can be mitigated by changing line 2170 of acmart.cls (version v1.55 at least) to correctly display the authors with "and". This is in the mkbibcitation section: after \def\\{\unskip{}, \ignorespaces}, replace \authors with the correct authors. Very hacky but it works. – craymichael Feb 26 at 19:45
• This is now officially not recommended: acm.org/publications/taps/latex-best-practices – Vincent Apr 1 at 13:58

@Boris answers above, but the two options proposed either create longer author columns or leave one author as a name with no affiliation, i.e., for me the affiliation doesn't centre. The problem with long author columns is that, when one adds in CCS, keywords, ACM citation format, copyright/license blob, all of a sudden the first page shrinks a lot, and (for me at least) I start to run up against page limits.

Best option I've found is to use multiple affiliation tags as suggested, but try to cut down on the number of sub-tags, particularly for secondary affiliations. So, for my primary affiliation, I use institution, skip streetaddress, and use town. I add state (province in my case) into town (Mytown, PR), and then move on to the secondary affiliation but use only institution for the secondary affiliation. In particularly egregious cases, I've used newline within the affiliation and just put everything within the affiliation tag because incorporating our unit+school name makes for a long line with a poorly placed line break.

The benefit for me of sidestepping tags is that I can shrink the number of lines while incorporating multiple affiliations, but the problem is that not all affiliations will necessarily be captured well in automatic meta-data extraction. Fortunately, I think meta-data is uploaded by the authors separately rather than captured from the pdf, so this is probably the best option. After all, there is a word template, and I can't imagine that it's always well-formatted for meta-data extraction.

I get that both of these options are less than ideal. I understand the need to satisfy ACM editor constraints, but I just wish there was a way to do it that didn't look quite so ...

• Welcome to TeX.SX! This is more of a discussion about how to format affiliations rather than solving the specific problem of complying with a given format. – egreg Apr 27 '17 at 8:50

According to this document:

You should repeat the Affiliation:

\author{Name Name}
\affiliation{%
\institution{University Latex}
\city{Latexville}
\country{Latexland}
}
\affiliation{%
\institution{University Latex 2}
\city{Latexville 2}
\country{Latexland 2}
}
\email{email@latex.com}


While it is discouraged by ACM, but one can:

\settopmatter{authorsperrow=1} %make the template consider one author per row
\newcommand{\tsc}[1]{\textsuperscript{#1}} %shorthand for superscripts
\author{a\tsc{1,4}, b\tsc{2,4}, c\tsc{1,4}, d\tsc{1,4}, e\tsc{1,4}}
\author{f\tsc{1,4}, g\tsc{1}, h\tsc{1,4}, i\tsc{2,4}, j\tsc{2,4}} %to break line, start another author block
\author{k\tsc{3,4}, l\tsc{2,3,4}, m\tsc{1,4}, n\tsc{2,4}}
\affiliation{
\institution{\vskip .2cm}%add some spacing if needed
\institution{1. A}
\institution{2. B}
\institution{3. C}
\institution{4. D}
}

• Well, if it is discouraged by ACM then simply do not do it or you risk to get the article not accepted ... BTW: the question is from 2017, is that working in an updated template too? BTW: Welcome to TeX.SE! – Mensch Aug 28 at 12:27