24 Citations

24.1 Encoding citations

There are three styles of citations:

Normal: (Smith 2012) in author-date style, [7] in number style, footnote in citations-in-footnotes style.
Inline: Smith (2012) says that….
Year-only: … that elephants are happier than humans (2012).

How normal citations are displayed is taken care of by the journal’s template. The illustrations below use the author-date style.

To code a citation of a given reference, you need to know the reference’s citation key. You can see the keys from the .bib file of your article. In RStudio, if you use the visual mode, use Insert > citation and select the source “Bibliography”, and it will allow you to select entries from the .bib file.

I want	I type
Normal
(Smith, 2012)	`[@Smith2012]`
(Smith, 2012, 2015)	`[@Smith2012; @Smith2015]`
(Smith 2012; Jones 2015)	`[@Smith2012;@Jones2015]`
(Smith 2012, 205)	`[@Smith2012, 205]`
(Smith 2012, iv-vii) Note: when non-numerical page numbers specify `p.` in the code	`[@Smith2012, p. iv-viii]`
(see Smith 2012, 205)	`[see @Smith2012, 205]`
(Smith 2012, 205-210, 235)	`[@Smith2012, 205-210, 235]`
(Smith 2012, 28; Jones 2015, 2017)	`[@Smith2012, 28; @Jones2015;` `@Jones2017]`
(see Smith 2012, 28; comp. Jones 2015, 28; also Jones 2017, 45-58) Note: whether you get ‘;’ or ‘,’ or ‘:’ separators between several citations should be specified and handled automatically by the template.	`[see @Smith2018, 28; comp. @Jones2015, 28; also @Jones2017, 45--48]`
Inline
Smith (2012) says that	`@Smith2012 says that`
Smith (2012, 205) says that	`@Smith2012 [205] says that`
Smith (2012, x-xii) says that Specify `p.` when the page numbers are not numerical	`@Smith2012 [p. x-xii] says that`
Inline several papers by same author, you format the first inline and the rest regular:
Smith (2012; 2015, 205) says that	`@Smith2012 [@Smith2015, 205]` `says that`
Peregrin & Svoboda (2013, 2016, 2017, and also Read, 2018) Smith (2012, p. 33; 2015, p. 300) Alternatively, you can type the name and use year-only: Smith (2012; 2015)	`@peregrin-svoboda:2013a` `[@peregrin-svob oda:2016;@peregrin-svoboda:2017; and` `also @read_s:2000]` `@Smith2012 [p.33; @Smith2015, p.300]` `Smith [-@Smith2012,` `@Smith2015]`
Year only Smith makes an outrageous claim (2015, 277). Smith keeps repeating himself (2012, 2013, 2014, 2015). Smith said this in a few places (2012, 20; 2013, 30) Smith said (in his 2012 a.o.) that note: -(Smith2012?) doesn’t work, brackets are needed.	Smith makes an outrageous claim `[-@Smith2015, 277]`. Smith keeps repeating himself `[-@Smith2012; @Smith2013;` `@Smith2014; @Smith2015]` Smith said this in a few places `[-@Smith2012, 20; @Smith2013,` `30]`. Smith said (in his Smith2012? a.o) that

Common errors:

Bad Good

Bad	Good
Code: `(See for instance` `[@Smith2015]).` (See for instance `@Jones2018`). Output: (See for instance (Smith, 2015)). (See for instance Jones (2018)).	Code: `[See for instance,` `@Smith2015]` Output: (See for instance Smith, 2015).
Code: `See f o r instance @Smith2012; @Smith2015.` Output: See for instance Smith (2012); Smith (2015).	Code: `See for insta n ce Smith [-@Smith2012; @Smith2015]` Output: See for instance Smith (2012, 2015).

Code:

(See for instance [@Smith2015]).

(See for instance @Jones2018).

Output:

(See for instance (Smith, 2015)).

(See for instance Jones (2018)).

Code:

[See for instance, @Smith2015]

Output:

(See for instance Smith, 2015).

Code:

See f o r instance @Smith2012; @Smith2015.

Output:

See for instance Smith (2012); Smith (2015).

Code:

See for insta n ce Smith [-@Smith2012; @Smith2015]

Output:

See for instance Smith (2012, 2015).

More details explained in pandoc’s markdown reference, citations section.

24.1.1 Inline: why do I get “Doe (2012; Doe 2016)”?

Inline citations of multiple authors look like this: “See Doe (2012; Smith 2013)”. The code is see @Doe2012 [@Smith2016] as explained above.

Inline citations of multiple references by the same author, on the other hand, should look like this: “See Doe (2012; 2016)”, as explained above. The code is see @Doe2012 [@Doe2016].

If you get “see Doe (2012; Doe 2016)”:

if Doe is author of one reference but editor of the other, this is normal. Leave it like that.
if Doe is the author of both (or the editor of both), this is an error in your bibliography file: Doe’s name isn’t recognized as the same, probably because it’s entered differently on both references. Typically, this is because the first name is different (“Doe, J” vs “Doe, Jane”) or because of a extra initial (“Doe, Jane” vs “Doe, Jane E.”).

24.1.2 Ibid., Op. Cit., sec. or § and the like

All the finer-grained formating is handled by the bibliography template. Whether repeated citations are printed out as “ibid”, “op. cit”, whether page ranges are referred to as “pp. 12-15” or “p. 12-15” or “12-15”, whether sections are called “sec.” or “§”, etc., all of this is decided and automatically handled by the bibliography template.

If an author uses ibid. or op. cit., just replace it with the original citation. For instance, if the author’s manuscript has:

Lewis (1986, 19) says something important. He adds something less interesting a few pages later (ibid., 29).

We encode:

@Lewis1986 [19] says something important. He adds something less
interesting a few pages later [@Lewis1986, 29].

24.1.2.1 Citing notes, footnotes, and endnotes

We don’t distinguish between foot- and endnotes and only use note.

I want	I type
Normal
(Smith, 2012, n. 11)	`[@Smith2012, n.11]` or `[@Smith2012, note 11]`

For how to cross-reference footnotes from the same article see Section 23.3.

24.1.3 Putting a citation link on a page number, or a word

Citations must all be in one of the three forms above (Normal, Inline or Year-only). We cannot, and should not, put them on arbitrary words or page numbers. For instance, in the following:

@Lewis1986 [19] says something important, but see also page 29.

We could either turn “page 29” in an inline or year-only citation, or leave it without link—provided there’s already a link to the work nearby, as is the case above.

24.2 Examples with preferred answers

24.2.1 Example: Doe (2019, 2020)

Original

It should be noted here that, on the face of it, Doe (2019, 2020) does introduce his theory to justify placing greater weight on oneself than on others in making decisions.

Proposed

It should be noted here that, on the face of it, Doe (2020, 2019) does introduce his theory to justify placing greater weight on oneself than on others in making decisions.

on the face of it, Doe [-@doe_j:2020; -@doe_j:2019] does introduce...

Preferred

Use the inline citation format.

It should be noted here that, on the face of it, Jane Doe (2020, 2019) does introduce his theory to justify placing greater weight on oneself than on others in making decisions.

on the face of it, @doe_j:2020 [@doe_j:2019] does introduce

24.2.2 Example: locating the possessive “’s”

Original

One example is Doe (2020)’s notion of the “personal horizon,” especially considering his discussion of “the truth in solipsism” and his insistence that “my” horizon is really “the” (preeminent) horizon.

Proposal

One example is Doe (2020)’s notion of the “personal horizon,” especially considering his discussion of “the truth in solipsism” and his insistence that “my” horizon is really “the” (preeminent) horizon.

One example is Doe
[-@doe_j:2020]'s notion...

Preferred

Inline citations are simpler and give a better output link (clickable name as well as year):

One example is Jane Doe (2020)’s notion…

One example is @doe_j:2020's notion...

But in the original, “Doe (2020)’s …” is bad typesetting. Better move the citation to the end of the sentence or attach the possessive to the author’s name:

One example is Doe’s notion of the “personal horizon,” especially considering his discussion of “the truth in solipsism” and his insistence that “my” horizon is really “the” (preeminent) horizon [doe_j:2020].

“the” (preeminent) horizon [doe_j:2020].

One example is Doe’s [-doe_j:2020] notion…

One example is Doe's [-doe_j:2020] notion...

Both are fine, my favoured option is the first.

24.2.3 Example

Original

Others have granted him as much (e.g., Jones (2017), and Jane Doe in the introduction to Smith (2018)).

Copyedited

We would avoid the double parenthesis at the end. More generally, avoid parentheses when the references is in parentheses:

Others have granted him as much (e.g., Jones, 2017, and Jane Doe in the introduction to Smith, 2018).

But also, if we’re citing Jane Doe’s introduction to Smith (2018), we should have a bibliography entry for that chapter itself. So ultimately we want:

(e.g., Jones, 2017, Doe 2018).

Proposed

First attempt, use two inline citations. But it results in a double parenthesis:

Others have granted him as much (e.g., Jones (2019), and Jane Doe in the introduction to Smith (2018)).

as much (e.g., @jones_j:2017, and Jane Doe in the introduction to @smith_j:2018).

Second attempt, make it a single parenthesis citation with two references, on the model (Jones 2019; Smith 2018) ([@jones_j:2017; @smith_j:2018]). But pandoc doesn’t see it as a citation and the phrase disappears:

Others have granted him as much Smith (2018).

as much [e.g., @jones_j:2017, and Jane Doe in the introduction to @smith_j:2018].

What is going on? The syntax of inline citation separates prefixes and suffixes with commas (,) or spaces and different references with semi-colons (;). So the general rule is: if you have two keys you should have a semi-colon. In the code above what pandoc sees is:

[prefix, @citekey, verylongsuffix]

where verylongsuffix is the code and Jane Doe in the introduction to @smith_j:2018. But a suffix cannot include citations. It can only be simple text (and passim or a famous passage) or locator type + location (chap. 2, pages 12-13) or location (12-13).

To avoid that, we must make “and Jane Doe in the introduction to” the prefix of the second citation, @smight_j:2018:

Others have granted him as much (e.g., Jones 2019; and Jane Doe in the introduction to Smith 2018).

as much [e.g., @jones_j:2017; and Jane Doe in the introduction to @smith_j:2018].

This is seen by pandoc as:

[prefix, @jones_j:2017; anotherprefix @smith_j:2018].

Remark that we get ; rather than , in between the citations. Compare:

Others have granted him as much (e.g., Jones, 2017, and Jane Doe in the introduction to Smith, 2018).

Others have granted him as much (e.g., Jones, 2017; and Jane Doe in the introduction to Smith, 2018).

Some might prefer the first. But this is a small cost and one could argue that the second is more systematic.

Preferred

The preferred method is to cite Doe’s introduction to Smith (2018) as a reference in its own right:

Others have granted him as much (e.g., Jones 2019; John Doe 2018).

as much [e.g., @jones_j:2017; @doe_j:2018].

This requires an adding to the entry in the bibliography. The entry is a book section authored by Doe is a book authored (not edited) by Smith. Entering it in Zotero and exporting as Bibtex gives us the code:

@inbook{doe_j:2018,
    author = {Doe, John},
    title = {Introduction},
    booktitle = {An imaginary book},
    bookauthor = {Smith, John},
    publisher = {Ideas Press},
    address = {Mainville},
    year = {2018}
}

24.2.4 Example: Citation in parenthesis with interfering syntax

Original

Others have granted him as much (see, e.g., Jones (2017); I speak simply in terms of states of affairs, as for present purposes nothing hinges on this).

If we typeset it as usual, with square brackets, it will look like this:

Others have granted him as much [see, e.g., @jones_j:2017; I speak simply in terms of states of affairs, as for present purposes nothing hinges on this].

Others have granted him as much [see, e.g., Jones (2019); I speak simply in terms of states of affairs, as for present purposes nothing hinges on this].

Proposed

The semi-colon (;) separates different references. Since there isn’t a second reference, the whole reference isn’t recognised as a reference in parenthesis. To avoid this, we can replace the semi-colon for an em-dash, if the context allows for that. Otherwise, we need to reformulate the text.

Others have granted him as much (see, e.g., Jones 2019—I speak simply in terms of states of affairs, as for present purposes nothing hinges on this).