I use Mendeley to generate the bibliography.bib file and biblatex to process it. I noticed a problem with arXiv references for which the field primaryClass is defined. Consider the following example:


archivePrefix = {arXiv},
arxivId = {hep-th/9411102},
author = {Witten, Edward},
eprint = {9411102},
month = {nov},
primaryClass = {hep-th},
title = {Monopoles and Four-Manifolds},
year = {1994}






The bibliogaphy entry was copied from the file generated by Mendeley. The code produces the following:


However, when I click on the link, it takes me to https://arxiv.org/abs/9411102, which does not exist. The correct hyperlink should be https://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/9411102. My questions are:

  1. How can I correct the hyperlink?

  2. How can I get arXiv:hep-th/9411102, which is the correct arxivId, instead of arXiv: 9411102 [hep-th]?

Only solutions which do not require me to modify the bibliography file are acceptable.

Thank you very much for your help!

Update 1: This is the non-modified output generated by Mendeley.

abstract = {Recent developments in the understanding of {\$}N=2{\$} supersymmetric Yang-Mills theory in four dimensions suggest a new point of view about Donaldson theory of four manifolds: instead of defining four-manifold invariants by counting {\$}SU(2){\$} instantons, one can define equivalent four-manifold invariants by counting solutions of a non-linear equation with an abelian gauge group. This is a ``dual'' equation in which the gauge group is the dual of the maximal torus of {\$}SU(2){\$}. The new viewpoint suggests many new results about the Donaldson invariants.},
archivePrefix = {arXiv},
arxivId = {hep-th/9411102},
author = {Witten, Edward},
eprint = {9411102},
file = {:home/ylpu/Dropbox/Knihovna/files/Witten - 1994 - Monopoles and Four-Manifolds.pdf:pdf},
month = {nov},
primaryClass = {hep-th},
title = {{Monopoles and Four-Manifolds}},
url = {https://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-th/9411102.pdf http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/9411102},
year = {1994}

Update 2: I changed article to misc in the code above because the image was generated using misc and not article.

Discussion about @article vs. @online/@misc:

The options in Mendeley are either Generic or Journal Article; they produce @misc and @article, respectively. As far as I know there is no option for @online. I include below another example, where [1] is a citation of a journal article, and [2] and [3] are citations of the same article from arXiv using @misc and @article, respectively. I personally prefer @misc for arXiv articles because I do not see any reason for "In: (Nov. 1994)". On the other hand, I like "In:" for journal articles because it marks the beginning of the publication data - journal, volume, date, page.

@article vs @misc

  • 3
    biblatex would expect you to give it eprint = {hep-th/9411102} and eprinttype = {arxiv}. I believe you'd get expected results with that. That given, there's still the issue of how to convince Medley to do that... – gusbrs Jun 16 '18 at 15:25
  • 1
    While we are at it: month = {nov}, should be month = nov, (without braces!), month = {12}, or if you like month = 12. month = {nov} is wrong even though Biber salvages it, BibTeX on the other hand is stumped. The biblatex solution would be date = {1994-11}, but that is not backwards compatible with BibTeX. – moewe Jun 16 '18 at 15:35
  • 1
    @article is equally wrong. Only papers published in a (scientific) journal should be @articles. If the paper on the arXiv was not published in a journal, @online is the better choice. See also tex.stackexchange.com/q/415115/35864. Furthermore the url field can only contain one URL. Two or more URLs will inevitably break and cause a mess. – moewe Jun 16 '18 at 15:47
  • 2
    Please complain loudly to the Mendeley developers about this. Especially if you (or your institution) are paying for an account. Going back though my answers I can find quite some problematic behaviours with Mendeley's export: tex.stackexchange.com/q/428959/35864, tex.stackexchange.com/q/429297/35864 (could be a UI issue), tex.stackexchange.com/q/286261/35864 (definitely Mendeley's fault), tex.stackexchange.com/q/247874/35864, tex.stackexchange.com/q/227460/35864 – moewe Jun 16 '18 at 15:54
  • @moewe I disagree with that. 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 '18 at 18:35

The correct way to give pre-2007 arXiv identifiers in biblatex is putting eprinttype = {arxiv} and eprint = {<class>/<id>}. So ideally your example would be

  author     = {Witten, Edward},
  title      = {Monopoles and Four-Manifolds},
  date       = {1994-11},
  eprint     = {hep-th/9411102},
  eprinttype = {arxiv},

Note how I used the actually existing entry type @online instead of the non-existent @generic.

Papers that use the new, post-2007 scheme have the class in eprintclass and only the numerical identifier in the eprint field

  author       = {Wassenberg, Jan and Sanders, Peter},
  title        = {Faster Radix Sort via Virtual Memory and Write-Combining},
  date         = {2010-08-17},
  version      = 1,
  eprinttype   = {arxiv},
  eprintclass  = {cs.DS},
  eprint       = {1008.2849v1},

This is consistent with the link always going to https://arxiv.org/abs/<eprint>.

For backwards compatibility reasons archivePrefix is an alias for eprinttype, so archivePrefix = {arxiv} is the same as eprinttype = {arxiv}. Furthermore primaryclass is an alias for eprintclass.

This explains what you are seeing: arxivId is not a know field and therefore ignored, archivePrefix becomes eprinttype, primaryClass becomes eprintclass and so you get the output that

  eprinttype   = {arxiv},
  eprintclass  = {hep-th},
  eprint       = {9411102},

would produce:

arXiv: 9411102 [hep-th]

with a link to http://arxiv.org/abs/9411102

Your .bib entries seems to be using an unintelligible mess of old and new formats together with fields unknown to biblatex. This should definitely be fixed in the .bib file. If Mendeley produces this mess automatically, complain to the Mendeley developers. If some automatic citation export tool produced this mess (Software-generated bibliographic entries: common errors and other mistakes to check before use), complain to the provider of the data. (At least if they claim to offer biblatex-compatible data. Otherwise they can hide behind the fact that there is no consensus amongst traditional BibTeX .bst files how to handle arXiv eprints - if they offer it at all.)

You can try and get Biber to repair some of the damage on the fly. The following works under the assumption that all old-style arXiv identifier are presented as in your question. In particular arxivId must contain the full link after https://arxiv.org/abs/ in the form <class>/<identifier> and archivePrefix or eprinttype must be arxiv. The primaryClass will be discarded if a / is found in arxivId indicating we have a pre-2007 identifier.

      \step[fieldset=eprint, origfieldval]
      \step[fieldsource=eprint, match={/}, final]
      \step[fieldset=primaryClass, null]

I didn't do anything for new identifiers since I don't know how these look in your .bib file.

  • Your solution works! And it led me to the section "4.5.3 Dynamic Modification of Data" in the BibLaTeX manual, which I can study. Thank you very much! – Pavel Jun 16 '18 at 15:52
  • @user32817 Of course it does ;-). But it is really only a bad kludge to patch up a seriously flawed .bib file on the fly. The real solution is to fix the source file. You can do quite a lot with source maps, but the point is that you shouldn't have to do some of these things in the first place if Mendeley were to export properly formatted .bib files. – moewe Jun 16 '18 at 15:58
  • OK, I will write a complaint to Mendeley developers. – Pavel Jun 16 '18 at 16:01
  • @user32817 Good. Note that as I say in the answer there is really no "this is how an arXiv eprint must look like in .bib files" rule in the BibTeX documentation (BibTeX was developed before arXiv existed). Consequently nor all BibTeX (.bst) styles that add arXiv support do it in the same way. But if Mendeley claims to export for biblatex it should conform to the data model and its usage as documented in the biblatex manual. – moewe Jun 16 '18 at 16:07
  • 1
    @CobyViner (and for the benefit of others reading this) I answered below tex.stackexchange.com/a/415117/35864 – moewe Jun 16 '18 at 18:52

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.