I'm trying to cite this article correctly. Google Scholar has the following bibtex citation, which is not correct because the number of pages is 64, not 6.

  title={Bit-vector algorithms for binary constraint satisfaction and subgraph isomorphism},
  author={Ullmann, Julian R},
  journal={Journal of Experimental Algorithmics (JEA)},

I think the entry was probably generated automatically and it got confused by data in bibtex citation from ACM page, which is pages = {1.6:1.1--1.6:1.64}. The 1.6 actually denotes a chapter or section in the journal, as can be seen on image below, which is cropped part of article's title page.

enter image description here

I would like to remove the 1.6 from the pages entry as it looks weird and non-consistent but still have it in citation. However, when I tried to use chapter = {1.6} for this, the data doesn't appear anywhere in citation, probably because it is an article. What would be preferred way to include this type of information?

  • 4
    The ACM has clearly created something truly odious in their page numbering scheme. I would just replace the page range with 1--64 and be done with it. For other ways to deal with it, you would need to tell us more about how you are producing your bibliography.
    – Alan Munn
    Jan 15, 2018 at 23:33
  • 1
    It might be helpful to add the entire ACM .bib entry; the Google scholar entry is really not relevant to the question. ACM has a field for the 1.6: it calls it the "article number", so not a chapter or section.
    – Alan Munn
    Jan 15, 2018 at 23:40
  • I've upvoted your comment for the "The ACM has clearly created something truly odious in their page numbering scheme." observation. :-)
    – Mico
    Jan 16, 2018 at 0:46
  • 1
    The ACM bibtex files are designed to work with their ACM-Reference-Format.bst file, and instructions on how to use it here: acm.org/publications/authors/bibtex-formatting I agree that it is exceptionally problematic to use their number system with standard bibtex templates.
    – jII
    Jul 17, 2019 at 13:30

1 Answer 1


If one follows the link you provided, one gets (as of today, at least) the following screenshot:

enter image description here

Observe the "Export Formats" item in the right-hand column. Click on the "BibTeX" sub-item, and you'll get:

 author = {Ullmann, Julian R.},
 title = {Bit-vector Algorithms for Binary Constraint Satisfaction and Subgraph Isomorphism},
 journal = {J. Exp. Algorithmics},
 issue_date = {2010},
 volume = {15},
 month = feb,
 year = {2011},
 issn = {1084-6654},
 pages = {1.6:1.1--1.6:1.64},
 articleno = {1.6},
 numpages = {1.54},
 url = {http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/1671970.1921702},
 doi = {10.1145/1671970.1921702},
 acmid = {1921702},
 publisher = {ACM},
 address = {New York, NY, USA},
 keywords = {AllDifferent constraint, backtrack, binary constraints, bit-vector, constraint propagation, constraint satisfaction, domain reduction, focus search, forward checking, graph indexing, molecule matching, prematching, signature file, subgraph isomorphism},

Obviously, quite a few of the fields will never be processed by BibTeX -- at least not by any BibTeX bib style I've ever come across... -- so the entry may be simplified as follows:

 author  = {Ullmann, Julian R.},
 title   = {Bit-vector Algorithms for Binary Constraint Satisfaction and 
            Subgraph Isomorphism},
 journal = {Journal of Experimental Algorithmics},
 year    = {2011},
 volume  = {15},
 number  = {1.6},
 pages   = {1.6:1--1.6:64},
 month   = feb,
 issn    = {1084-6654},
 url     = {http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/1671970.1921702},
 doi     = {10.1145/1671970.1921702},

Observe that I changed the field name articleno to number. I also rearranged the ordering of some of the fields. This doesn't make a difference to BibTeX, but it (hopefully) makes it easier on humans to scan the information contained in this entry.

Some bib styles may be set up to do something with the month, issn, url, and doi fields; that's why I didn't delete them.

  • By putting ˋ1.6´ in number as well as in pages, you will create an output which is hard to read. You might want to skip one of those Apr 8, 2021 at 15:27
  • @GuidoKanschat - It wasn't me who put "1.6" into both the pages and the number field. This came straight from the publisher's own website. That said, I actually agree with you that the apparent doubling (or even tripling) of the "1.6" string doesn't make things more legible.
    – Mico
    Apr 8, 2021 at 18:19

You must log in to answer this question.

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