In the standard styles/data model the difference between @inproceedings
and @incollection
isn't actually all that big.
@inproceedings
has extra fields for venue
, eventdate
and eventtitle
to specify more conference information (if the data given in the booktitle
or booktitleaddon
is not sufficient). It also supports an organization
field for the organising ... organisation.
@inproceedings
does not have an edition
field. (Presumably because it is expected that there is never going to be a new edition of conference proceedings. Once they're published that's it.)
Semantically the only difference is that you know that an @inproceedings
comes from a collection of conference papers, whereas an @incollection
might be any old collection of papers. I think it doesn't hurt to make the distinction if it is easily made, but wouldn't worry about it too much if it's not easily done.
If the style you use behaves differently and gives undesirable output for both cases, check its documentation for guidance. If there is none, it might be a good idea to contact the developer about it.
Note that "Lecture Notes in Computer Science" is a series
in biblatex
parlance and the number of a book in that series belongs in the number
field even if Springer talks about volumes.
Grabbing an example from the current start page of LNCS I could imagine using the following entry
\documentclass[british]{article}
\usepackage[T1]{fontenc}
\usepackage{babel}
\usepackage{csquotes}
\usepackage[backend=biber, style=authoryear]{biblatex}
\begin{filecontents}{\jobname.bib}
@inproceedings{clouet,
author = {Clouet, Myriam and Antignac, Thibaud
and Arnaud, Mathilde and Signoles, Julien},
editor = {Prevosto, Virgile and Seceleanu, Cristina},
title = {Context Specification Language for
Formally Verifying Consent Properties
on Models and Code},
booktitle = {Tests and Proofs},
booktitleaddon = {Proceedings of the 17th International Conference on Tests and Proofs},
year = {2023},
publisher = {Springer Nature Switzerland},
address = {Cham},
pages = {68--93},
eventtitle = {TAP 2023},
venue = {Leicester, UK},
eventdate = {2023-07-18/2023-07-19},
series = {Lecture Notes in Computer Science},
number = {14066},
doi = {10.1007/978-3-031-38828-6_50},
}
\end{filecontents}
\addbibresource{\jobname.bib}
\addbibresource{biblatex-examples.bib}
\begin{document}
Lorem \autocite{sigfridsson,clouet}
\printbibliography
\end{document}

YMMV especially with respect to the booktitle
and booktitleaddon
field: You may just want to have
booktitle = {Proceedings of the 17th International Conference on Tests and Proofs},
and no booktitleaddon
because the "Tests and Proofs" is part of the conference name.
You may or may not be interested in all the eventtitle
, venue
, eventdate
stuff and may want to drop it.
@inproceedings
type but always use@incollection
for conference proceedings papers. I wouldn't take the entry types so literally. Conference proceedings are volumes of collected papers from that conference, so the@incollection
type is appropriate most of the time.@inproceedings
be appropriate, in your opinion? (I acknowledge that you rarely use it.).bib
file finds 28@inproceedings
entries. Their most salient property seems to be that they were added very early when I didn't know any better. :) Their second salient property seems to be that they're papers where I had very minimal information about the paper, usually just author, year, title and conference. But all of the papers which have full information (editors, pages etc.) are@incollection
.