This question is similar to Suppress “In:” biblatex and biblatex: How to remove the parentheses around the year in authoryear style?, but I don’t want to change the format of bibliography entries completely, but would rather like it to deal better with some cases.

If I have a BibTeX entry of type @article which does not give a journal title (e. g. in the journal field), as it happens with pure e-print articles, the entry is still printed of the form “In: (<year>)” in the bibliography.

For example, with this BibTeX entry, the entry is printed as follows in the bibliography:

D. Wegman. “Deviations of exact neutrino textures using radiative neutrino masses”. In: (2017). arXiv: 1711.08004 [hep-ph].

The part “In: (2017).” looks very suboptimal. How could the formatting be improved for entries without a journal title?

  • 2
    This is not an @article entry. It is an @online. See the arXiv-only examples in biblatex-examples.bib. @article is only for papers published in a journal, @articles always have a journal (and volume). If a paper does not have a journal that means it was not published in a journal and so @article is inappropriate
    – moewe
    Feb 13, 2018 at 14:02
  • 2
    To echo @moewe's comment: If an entry is lacking a journal field, the entry shouldn't be given the type @article. Period.
    – Mico
    Feb 13, 2018 at 14:03
  • I see. So I suppose the fault lies with the BibTeX output at INSPIRE-HEP.
    – Socob
    Feb 13, 2018 at 14:04
  • 1
    It is a possibility: tex.stackexchange.com/q/386053/105447
    – gusbrs
    Feb 13, 2018 at 14:08
  • Related: tex.stackexchange.com/q/411073/105447
    – gusbrs
    Feb 13, 2018 at 15:34

1 Answer 1


The entry type @article is only for papers that were actually published in a journal. @articles must always have a journal (and volume) field. That means that if an entry was not published in a journal and consequently has no journal field, it cannot be an @article.

arXiv preprints that are not yet published in a journal are normally classified as @online entries. Compare the entries baez/online, itzhaki and wassenberg in biblatex-examples.bib. You could go with

  author       = {Wegman, D.},
  title        = {Deviations of Exact Neutrino Textures Using Radiative Neutrino Masses},
  date         = {2017-11-21},
  version      = 1,
  eprinttype   = {arxiv},
  eprint       = {1711.08004},
  eprintclass  = {hep-ph},

There is no reason to believe that not choosing @article and using @online instead somehow demotes the source to a second-class citation. Choosing entry types is not about "rating" the source, it is about picking the correct framework to fit in the publication data.

There might be a general sentiment that online sources are generally less reliable or less citable (is that even a word?), but the entry type in a .bib should not be seen as an indicator to assess this. If you absolutely can't live with @online go for @misc instead.

I will admit that the advent of online publishing may have blurred the lines between periodicals/journals and pre-print servers. And it might be hard to come up with a good definition of what a journals is now. Nevertheless I think that the arXiv is not a journal.

  • I disagree. arXiv should be considered as a journal, in this sense. Its pre-print status can optionally be indicated with: pubstate = {\bibstring{prepublished}}. There is no need to consider pre-prints as second-class objects, especially for citation purposes.
    – Coby Viner
    Jun 16, 2018 at 18:38
  • @CobyViner There is no indication that not choosing @article as entry types somehow demotes the status of a source or diminishes its significance - let alone turns it into a second-class object! Picking the right entry type is not about "rating" a source, it is about choosing the right framework for the data. And I maintain that the arXiv is not a (scientific) journal with volumes, pages and hence not really appropriate here. After all you would not try to stuff a @book into an @article...
    – moewe
    Jun 16, 2018 at 18:45
  • I disagree on both points. And it is worth noting that many peer-reviewed journals themselves are online-only and lack volumes, having a page number in the same fashion as arXiv (that is an article number alone). Especially given the difficulty that still remains in citing pre-prints in some journals (for economic, and not scientific reasons), it is worth considering the impact that citing them as @online might have. But regardless, I really do think that they are an @article in every sense and their journal is simply "arXiv".
    – Coby Viner
    Jun 16, 2018 at 19:01
  • @CobyViner You are certainly right that the advent of online publishing and online-only publishing has made it harder to pin down whether or not a publication is a 'journal'. For what it is worth I think it is absurd to imply that not choosing @article would demote a source: To circumvent that I could simply invent my own journal to obtain promotion to @article. The entry type @article does not grant a higher status than @online by itself - what you or other people read into it is a different matter.
    – moewe
    Jun 16, 2018 at 19:14
  • My main point is that arXiv should be considered as an @article, in every sense. Its citations should follow the usual format for any journal. And I do not think the suggestion is absurd—it is fundamentally about the nature of pre-prints, not about relative "status" of citation types in any overall sense. It seems we will have to agree to disagree.
    – Coby Viner
    Jun 16, 2018 at 19:16

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.