Hello,
I was just wondering:
Why are the referencing for book chapter(s) and edited book(s) slightly different?
If I refer to book chapter(s) I want the word ‘In’ (book chapter) to appear. 'cause that’s how we should reference it - or at least that’s what my Uni wants me to do.
Edited book(s) are okay, though.
To amend it, I always have to convert it to plain text mode which can take up quite some time.
I want to just focus on my thesis as much as possible.
Thanks!
Hello Yjoleen,
The difference between a Book Section, and an Edited Book is that a book section is intended to be used for a Chapter of a book, and the Edited Book type is to be used for an entire volume that has been edited, rather than a single section/chapter.
In most cases, you should probably be using Book Chapter, but it’s certainly odd that the “In” is missing.
It’s possible that it may be incorrectly tied to the Editor field. If that is the case, then a chapter without editors would end up with that value being dropped.
If you change to a different style, does the same issue occur?
Which output style are you using to format this document?
It may be that there is a smalll change required to the style before that In appears, but it’s likely specific to the style that you’re using.
Please let me know.
Thanks!
Steve
@yjoleen2210 wrote:
If I refer to book chapter(s) I want the word ‘In’ (book chapter) to appear. 'cause that’s how we should reference it - or at least that’s what my Uni wants me to do.
The “In” may be excluded from the Book Section reference because the Editor field in the Endnote record was left blank. Note that Book Section reference type reflects chapter(s) written by different authors from an edited book. So in this case the Endnote record should contain the chapter’s Author and the Editor names.
If the book chapters are not written by individual authors but has an editor, use the Edited Book reference type. If the chapters are neither written by individual authors nor has an editor, use the Book reference type.
Ah okay.
So I tried earlier and APA 6th gave me this: Couldry, N. (2012). Media as ritual and social form Media, society, world: Social theory and digital media practice (pp. 59-84). Cambridge: Polity Press.
However, Chicago 16th gave me this: Couldry, N. “Media as Ritual and Social Form.” In Media, Society, World: Social Theory and Digital Media Practice, 59-84. Cambridge: Polity Press, 2012.
Then again, Chicago 16th isn’t really accurate either and I’m more comfortable using APA.
Since APA and Chicago are different styles where use varies by academic discipline suggest you verify which one (or other) is the correct one for you to use.
Also note that in APA the Couldry book page numbers should be cited withini an in-text citation and should not be listed in the bibliography reference. (Page numbers, however, would be listed in the bibliography for reference types such as Edited Books or Book Section.) Refer to the APA or respective style guide for reference guidelines
Hello again,
Given the information you provided about the behavior of the two styles, I had a look.
And, the APA 6th style does indeed have the “In” tied to the existence of an Editor.
I have made a minor adjustment to keep the In from being lost when there’s no editor, so this version of the APA 6th style should work much better for you.
Please give it a try.
Thanks,
Steve
APA 6th-Yjoleen.ens (63.2 KB)
ah, okay. It works now! Thank you!
Merry Christmas!
Thanks
Jo Leen
Hi Steve,
I am having the same problem but I don’t quite understand what minor adjustment you did to correct for the absence of editors. I need to cite a book chapter without editors (from the same authors) but the “In” does’t appear.
Thanks,
I would guess he added a separator character between the In and the Editor parts.
Author. (Year)|. Title| (Translator, Trans.)|. In |Editor (Ed.),^(Eds.),| Book Title| (|Edition ed., Vol. Volume, pp. Pages|)|. Place Published|: Publisher|. (Reprinted from: Reprint Edition)|.
That is likely exactly what I did.
Without the Forced Separation between the In and the editors, the Editor field won’t be tied to the word In, which will preserve “In” when no editors are present in the record.
Thanks!
Steve
Thanks! This worked. This is really useful, I did not know about the fact that we can edit the default styles output by going to Edit → Output Styles → Edit APA 6th → Bibliography → Templates → Book Section. I write this in case somebody does not know the pathway (like I did) :stuck_out_tongue:
I should add to this that there is a much more robust guide to modifying Styles and Reference Types than is found in the EndNote help file.
You can find the knowledge base article where the Style Guide can be downloaded from here…
This should provide good instruction for how to manipulate the style files.
I do hope this helps!
Thanks,
Steve
Thank you!
@yjoleen2210 wrote:
Hello,
I was just wondering:
Why are the referencing for book chapter(s) and edited book(s) slightly different?
If I refer to book chapter(s) I want the word ‘In’ (book chapter) to appear. 'cause that’s how we should reference it - or at least that’s what my Uni wants me to do.
Edited book(s) are okay, though.
To amend it, I always have to convert it to plain text mode which can take up quite some time.
I want to just focus on my thesis as much as possible.
Thanks!
http://cameraanphat.vn/lap-dat-camera-quan-sat-p8.html
this is amazing! and life saving. thans a lot
Actually it is to be like this:
Author. (Year)|. Title| (Translator, Trans.)|. In| Editor (Ed.),^(Eds.),| Book Title| (|Edition ed., Vol. Volume, pp. Pages|)|. Place Published|: Publisher|. (Reprinted from: Reprint Edition)|.
One of the reasons is that if it is like this: |. In |Editor (Ed.),^(Eds.),| then there will be two spaces between the “In” and the name of the article if there are no editors, and no spaces between the “in” and the editor.
However, if it is changed to this: In| Editor (Ed.),^(Eds.),| so in Endnote you have that little dot between the separator character and the Editor, there will not be two spaces between the “In” and the title of the article and you still have one space between the “In” and the editors.
Nevertheless, glad i found this forum and I was very frustrated with this. 
yep, I put it in the wrong “space” – good catch.
Steve,
I’m having the same issue with the JAMA output style. Many medical textbooks have chapters written with no author identified. And the JAMA style requires the “In” before the textbook name. And that is getting dropped here too. Can you possibly offer an updated JAMA output style?
Thank you,
Joe
Greetings,
I’m having the same issue with the JAMA output style. Many medical textbooks are written without an author identified for individual chapters. And so the required “In” is getting dropped here as well.
Can you possibly offer an updated output style for JAMA to correct this as well?
Thank you,
Joe
How do you want the bibliography entry to appear exactly and what reference type are you using for the record?
I see the difficulty – having the "In: associated with book title in the absense of an editor complicates things. You might want to instead have an alternative ref type for books of this kind – copy the book section to that template. If you don’t use “Electronic Book Section”, you might edit that one. and assign that ref type to the medical text chapters.
Assuming you want
Author|. Title|. In:*Editor, ed^eds|. Translator, trans|. Book Title|. Vol Volume|. Edition ed|. Place Published|: Publisher; Year|:Pages|.
where the * is a placeholder for the “link adjacent” symbol/character which is a tiny diamond.
Tested and attached.
JAMA -no editor-electronic-book-section.ens (35.1 KB)
Leanne,
I can’t thank you enough. This works perfect!
I was using book section, but will now use your suggestion of electronic book section using the modified bibliography entry.
I see the code on this website works with emotiocons, too :stuck_out_tongue:
Very much appreciated!
Joe