Is there a ready made BibTeX bibliography style file that both: (1) prints author names abbreviated (like abbrv
) in the references section and (2) sorts references numerically in citation order (like unsrt
)? Furthermore, is there one such style compatible with natbib
?
I didn't find a ready-made bst-file, but seem to have managed to combine unsrt
and abbrv
by myself. Since I can't upload the new bst-file, here's what I did:
Copy
unsrt.bst
into a working directory and rename it (later, this file should go into your local texmf tree);In the new file, look for
FUNCTION {format.names}
. In the seventh code line of this function, look forff~
and replace it withf.~
(because that's the way it is inabbrv.bst
);Replace the macros for month/journal names after
FUNCTION {default.type} { misc }
with their counterparts ofabbrv.bst
.
I've tested the resulting bst-file, and it seems to work. The relevant parts of plainnat.bst
, abbrvnat.bst
and unsrtnat.bst
resemble those of the standard bst-files at first glance, so I guess the above method should also work to create a natbib-compatible bst-file that suits your request.
P.S.: With biblatex, your request would basically boil down to \usepackage[sorting=none,firstinits=true]{biblatex}
. ;-)
-
8
There is a ready made BibTeX style file that both: (1) prints author names abbreviated (like abbrv
) in the references section and (2) sorts references numerically in citation order (like unsrt
): ieeetr.bst
.
According to Choosing a BibTeX style it is one of the seven standard styles that come with LaTeX, but I do not know if it is compatible with natbib
.
-
3+1 --
ieeetran
s formatting is somewhat different fromunsrt
andabbrv
, but it does abbreviate and sort in citation order. – lockstep Oct 26 '11 at 15:36
natbib
. I thought you want a citation format that has in-line[JoSm]
and in the reference section[JoSm] Johnson, A and B Smith, blah
. and have that listed in citation order. Looking more closely at LockStep's answer suggest you actually want just to abbreviate the author first names in the reference section and cite by number. Then in that case my objection won't apply. I'll leave why "what I thought you meant" is a bad idea as an exercise to the reader. – Willie Wong Nov 8 '10 at 13:05