Mishandling of duplicate detection of book sections in footnotes/short form/long form

(This is copied from rafalp’s comment in the thread linked below.  Please see original thread for full description of the problem and significant flaws and omission of key fields in Endnote’s decision about what is a duplicate in the handling of citations in a document.)

Thank you for the suggestion. Actually, the same was suggested by HenryLJ above – but I have tested it again now and it does not work. Clearly, this is not the algorithm used for checking whether a reference has already been cited earlier in the text. I had “Title” checked in the preferences but EN did not consider two papers (with different titles, of course) in the same volume of papers as different. I have now checked also “Secondary Title” which caused EN to ask me to identify a number of references again – which I did but the result was the same: another paper by the same author in the same book is still treated as the same and displayed using “short form”.

The problem was well presented by malachirobertso in the original posting. To restate it in simplified form: if there are two references in the database:

Roger Gryson,_ "Les sources," [in] Tyconii Afri Expositio Apocalypseos, Brepols Publishers, _2011, 2-24

Roger Gryson, “La présente édition,” [in] Tyconii Afri Expositio Apocalypseos, Brepols Publishers, 2011, 74-102

 

then when citing them in footnotes, there are two possible cases:

  1. If the second citation (either of them, of course) is in the same footnote or in the footnote immediately following it – it appears in the expected “long form” (with secondary title, publisher, pages, etc.).

  2. If the second citation is in a different footnote which does not follow immediately, then it is displayed in “short form” even though it was not cited earlier, e.g.: “Gryson, La présente”.

Thus EN seems to recognize that the two references are different in Case 1, but thinks they are the same in Case 2.

See this thread for a full discussion of this bug. 

 

http://community.thomsonreuters.com/t5/forums/replypage/board-id/en-general/message-id/10233

Thanks Leanne. Your suggestion to use an additional space after the publication year (instead of my own solution to add an “exotic” character like #$% and remove them from the final version converted to text) does not seem to work well. In footnotes for some reason the comma added by formatting after the year (and before pages) disappeares, while in the bibliography the space looks rather ugly before the closing parenthesis, so it would have to be removed anyway (I am using Chicago 15). The latter would easily be removed but the former is more problematic. So it seems # etc. (ie. any character which does not appear anywhere in the text or references themselves) would work better as a workaround. Still, it would be nice to have it corrected in the next upgrade of EN. It is true that one does not often find two or more papers by the same author in the same volume but it does happen. Even more often one would cite editor’s introduction and his own paper in the same volume – and the results would be as described above. I have only noticed this behaviour by accident and did not check if I had this (or if editiors noticed and corrected it) in any if my recent papers already printed :slight_smile:

1 Like