I’ve written a paper for my bachelor assignment, and am currently finishing up. I noticed just now that the template I have to follow has numbered references in alphabetical order. I however have used Endnote X3 (in word 2007, if that matters) using the style “Numbered”, but this numbers in order of occurence and not in alphabetical order. My question is, therefor, if the style I want (so numbered references but in alphabetical order) is possible within Endnote X3, and if I can just switch to it such that Endnote will do all that converting work for me!
Great thread! It solved exactly the problem I was struggling with. However, I have a question concerning how to format the in-text citations using the Numbered style. I need to distinguish between the following two types of in-text citations:
[1] (no page number)
([2], 23) (page number → need to add a parenthesis)
Currently the citation template is ([Bibliography Number], Cited Pages)
The problem, however, is how to let EndNote know that I only want to add the parenthesis when there is something in the Cited pages field?
However, then I would have to type the author name manually when using active references (“Williams [50] argues that…”) instead of letting EndNote generate the author name using the Author (Year) option.
Hmm, seems like either way I will have to insert something manually!
In a way, inserting the first parenthesis manually seems to be less extra work than inserting the author names manually (and less chance of making typos). However, when I try to format the Citation field in the way you suggested, that is:
[Bibliography Number]|,*Cited Pages)|
something strange happens. I press Save, but it seems like EndNote doesn’t save the last Separation marker |
When I close the edit output style window and reopen it again, the last Separation marker is simply gone! And without it, in-text citation looks like a mess…
Great, thanks! (I also removed the comma from the Citations field and inserted it manually in the cited pages field, if not it will appear in all references)
I am encountering another problem, though. I’m not sure if it’s a bug or if I’ve managed to unknowingly change some settings while trying out different solutions.
The problem is that in those cases where I have multiple references, the result looks like this:
… [36,48],51]
The multiple references didn’t always look that way, at one point they looked quite normal (i.e. [36, 48, 51]), but somehow they seem to have changed as I made some other changes…
I think the bracket problem is related to the Cited Pages field. If I remove the Cited Pages from the Citation field, the bracket problem disappears.
I’ve kind of found a way to get the references in the correct style, but it’s far from elegant and requires quite a lot of manual input. Here’s what I did:
Citation field: Bibliography Number
Prefix field: [
Suffix field: ]
If page numbers: add the following to the suffix field: , pp. 1-2)
Thinking of it, the solution you suggested in #10 (using Author date for citations with page numbers) is far better than my unelegant suggestion, and requires far less manual input
I already have the references in the document (it’s a revised manuscript), so then #10 is probably quicker. But if I were to write from scratch, what you just suggested sounds smoother.