I am using the natbib package and chicago style to create my reference list. Some of the references in the bib file contain a field called "note" which is printed if I use the following:
\documentclass{article}
\usepackage{natbib}
\begin{document}
\nocite{*}
\bibliographystyle{chicago}
\bibliography{test}
\end{document}
The bib references look like this:
@article{hambrick_influence_1996,
title = {The Influence of Top Management Team Heterogeneity on Firms' Competitive Moves},
volume = {41},
copyright = {Copyright © 1996 Johnson Graduate School of Management, Cornell University},
issn = {0001-8392},
url = {http://www.jstor.org/stable/2393871},
doi = {10.2307/2393871},
number = {4},
journal = {Administrative Science Quarterly},
author = {Hambrick, Donald C. and Cho, Theresa Seung and Chen, {Ming-Jer}},
month = dec,
year = {1996},
note = {{ArticleType:} research-article / Full publication date: Dec., 1996 / Copyright © 1996 Johnson Graduate School of Management, Cornell University},
pages = {659--684}
}
How do I suppress this "note" field? Another follow-up question: is there a way to suppress the "month" field in the printed reference?
Thanks!
annote
field, not thenote
field. Also, if you will be a regular user of the Chicago style, you should consider switching fromnatbib
tobiblatex
(and the new enginebiber
) to get a full and up to date implementation of the rather complicated Chicago specification. – jon Sep 25 '12 at 14:18annote
rather thannote
-- other than for the simple expedient of making BibTeX not process a field whose name it's not programmed to recognize? – Mico Sep 25 '12 at 14:26note
was meant to be printed in the output, whileannote
will simply be ignored. And the information in the example looks like stuff of interest to the database maintainer, but it certainly has no place in Chicago-style output. – jon Sep 25 '12 at 14:31.bst
style (as shown in the answer below), but, aside from the fact that the style implements a very outdated version of the Chicago specification (i.e., one that no journal/publisher will accept today), since it is based on the rigidbibtex
format, thenote
field might well be expected to do some real work in the bibliography output. The recommended thing to do is to 'invent' a field (e.g.,annote
): the.bst
/bibtex
will ignore all fields it does not recognize. – jon Sep 25 '12 at 14:59