The problem I have is that a paper that is cited by other papers I've read is not to be found. I've read only its abstract. I understand that what I want should look like

Featherstone et al 1900 (as cited in Thomas and Cullen 2002)

but I have no idea how to do it in LaTeX or BibTeX for that matter. I have no idea how to Google it either. I hope there's a way to do it.


3 Answers 3


Using biblatex, the solution would be similar. In in-text citation could be \textcite{featherstone1900} (assuming that's the .bib entry) and the parenthetical reference could be \parencite[as cited in][]{thomas-cullen2002} (again assuming that's the .bib entry).

Note, however, that biblatex offers a lot more in the way of citation commands, including especially \autocite and \smartcite, which are really clever at doing things 'right' given the citation style you have specified. If that's not enough, there are several dozen(!) variations of \*cite* commands. No other package matches this level of flexibility for bibliographies and citations.

  • Thanks, that seems like the way to go. I need to migrate my whole bibliography though :) Jul 16, 2012 at 23:03

In LaTeX, you can try \citet{featherstone00} (as cited in \citealt{thomas02}) or something similar. Read the natbib manual or check http://merkel.zoneo.net/Latex/natbib.php.


This sounds like a secondary source. For APA style the primary source referenced by the secondary sources is not included in the bibliography, only the secondary source is listed. This means you could do something like:

Featherstone and colleagues \citep[as cited in][]{TC2002}
  • This way the citation will not appear in the reference section because it was not used. Or at least I think so... Jul 16, 2012 at 23:02
  • @AleksandarSavkov you are correct that the primary source will not show up in the reference section. That is exactly my point. Your format with "as cited in" looks like APA style to me and APA style says that the primary source should not be included in the reference section. MLA has a slightly different in text citation style, but also only includes the secondary source in the reference section. Chicago includes both the primary and secondary source in the reference section, but has a substantially different in text style (primary source only).
    – StrongBad
    Jul 17, 2012 at 8:02
  • Thanks, I wasn't entirely sure on the specifics of different styles. Jul 17, 2012 at 13:58

You must log in to answer this question.

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