I'm working on a publication for a Springer journal and using their svjour3 LaTeX macro package to format everything (click here to download), which includes a spbasic.bst file. I'm using the Author-Date Style for citations.

For citing reprinted editions, the The Chicago Manual of Style says the following:

enter image description here

I'm not sure how to replicate this in LaTeX. I've come across solutions involving biblatex-chicago, but that appears to be incompatible with the svjour3 package.

The best I've managed to come up with is the following:

    year = {[1925] 2013},
    author = {C. D. Broad},
    publisher = {Reprint, New York: Routledge},
    title = {The Mind and its Place in Nature},
    doi = {https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315824147},

This generates the following in-text citation, which is what I need:

enter image description here

But the bibliographic entry looks like this:

enter image description here

It places the whole series of dates in parentheses rather than separating them.

Following the Author-Date Style guideline, I'd like the dates to be separated from each other, like this:

Broad CD (1925) 2013. The Mind and its Place in Nature. Reprint, New York: Routledge, DOI https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315824147

How can I do this?

  • 1
    Unrelated to your problem, but doi = {https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315824147}, is generally wrong and should be doi = {10.4324/9781315824147},. The doi field should contain only the DOI, not the link bit as well.
    – moewe
    Jul 25, 2021 at 9:10
  • But now to your problem: Are you sure that the CMoS guidelines are applicable here? I'd have thought Springer has their own citation/bibliography style guidelines. Unless it is crucially important to mention the original publication date in the story you are telling in your paper I'd probably just go with year = {2013}, and let Springer sort this out. (If publication history is important, you can also mention it explicitly in your text and not just indirectly via the citations).
    – moewe
    Jul 25, 2021 at 9:14
  • 1
    Urgh. I had a look at spbasic.bst's handling of \doi and its fallback definition (they have two!, the second of course never becomes relevant) is indeed at bit weird. I guess you'll have to stick with doi = {https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315824147}, for this paper, just keep in mind that almost all other styles that support DOIs expect the bare DOI in the doi field.
    – moewe
    Jul 25, 2021 at 9:22
  • The Springer page does not explicitly say which style guidelines to follow, but looking at some recent publications, Chicago-Author Date (or a variation on that?) seems to be the convention. See the following: springer.com/journal/11098/submission-guidelines
    – zblaesi
    Jul 25, 2021 at 9:25
  • As for the DOI, they explicitly say to include the full URL. But now that I think about it, they don't include the "DOI" label before the link—yet that's what spbasic.bst generates. So I don't know how to handle that either!
    – zblaesi
    Jul 25, 2021 at 9:26

1 Answer 1


Most BibTeX styles don't have a facility to specify original publication and reprint date separately.

So putting both into the year field is probably the closest you can get to a general solution

    year      = {[1925] 2013},
    author    = {C. D. Broad},
    publisher = {Reprint, New York: Routledge},
    title     = {The Mind and its Place in Nature},
    doi       = {https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315824147},

without modification of the .bst file (which for journal submissions is probably not recommended).

Note that spbasic.bst does not produce CMoS-compliant output for other entries either (CMoS would want "Doe, Jane. 2020. Title.", but spbasic gives us "Doe J (2020) Title"), so it is unclear whether you should try to stick to CMoS guidelines for this specific entry.

Many journals don't actually use LaTeX to publish their papers, so LaTeX submissions are usually transformed into a format usable for the publishing pipeline. It is very possible that tweaks to the bibliography output are applied at later stages in the publication process, so you may not need to worry too much about the finer details.

You must log in to answer this question.

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