I am quite often confronted with papers (conference proceedings) that are very cut down due to length limiations. Often authors then would publish an extended version of their paper on arXiv. I would like to print this in my bibliography e.g. as Author, "Title", Journal etc., extended version: arxiv-id. Now I do not know you to realise this relation properly with biblatex. I see two approaches:
Keep published
and extended
as two different entries in my bibliography and link them:
\documentclass{scrartcl}
\usepackage[backend=biber]{biblatex}
\usepackage{filecontents}
\begin{filecontents}{biblio.bib}
@article{published,
title={Title}, author={Author}, journal={Journal}, year={2021},
related={extended}, relatedstring={extended version}
}
@online{extended,
title={Title}, author={Author}, year={2021},
eprint={12345}, eprinttype={arxiv}}
}
\end{filecontents}
\addbibresource{biblio.bib}
\begin{document}
\nocite{*}
\printbibliography
\end{document}
This is ugly because it prints the title and year twice. Maybe it is good because the published and the extended version are two separate documents. But then I do not know how to print the entry nicely.
The alternative I see abuses the eprintclass
-field:
\documentclass{scrartcl}
\usepackage[backend=biber]{biblatex}
\usepackage{filecontents}
\begin{filecontents}{biblioa.bib}
@article{published,
title={Title}, author={Author}, journal={Journal}, year={2021},
eprint={12345}, eprinttype={arxiv}, eprintclass={extended version}}
}
\end{filecontents}
\addbibresource{biblioa.bib}
\begin{document}
\nocite{*}
\printbibliography
\end{document}
Of course this prints ugly, but maybe that can be fixed (how? I am too unexperienced with writing styles I guess). More severely, I think it is a bad idea to use the eprintclass
-field for something else than it is intended for.
What would be a suitable approach?
note
field is convenient (note={extended version: arxiv-id}
). Of course this does not allow for structured processing by a style but it seems sufficient for your purposes - and reasonably semantically correct as well.