Is there a way to enter subseries in EndNote? A fair few of the monographs I have in my EndNote are published in monograph series, but in subseries under those series.

I can’t find any fields that would correspond to these subseries – is there some proper way to do it? So far I’ve just been adding it in the Series Volume field after the actual series volume number; example:

Series Title: Monographica Orientalia
Series Volume: 12, Series Anatolica et Indogermanica 1

This works, but it’s kind of a hack.

Is there a more appropriate way to do this?

Would the Book Section ref type work?  Otherwise, you could create a new field in the ref type you are using and add the field that holds the series to the bibliography template.    

Most of the sources in question are Book Sections (i.e., chapters in an edited volume, where the edited volume appears in a subseries of a series – sometimes numbered in both the main series and the subseries, sometimes only numbered in one or the other).

I’m generally a bit leery of creating new field types (I assume you mean using the numbered Custom fields?), since those are ‘shared’ by everyone, as it were: in a library as big as the one I’m working with – about 6,000 entries, most imported from other EndNote libraries – there’s a good change someone has used any given Custom field for some other purpose, so I risk adding some random piece of irrelevant information to my bibliographic entries.

In book section, there are many existing fields that I see  unused by records in my library.   

Book section has already  Volume (generic “Volume”), Series Volume (generic “Number”) and Chapter (generic “Section”)  as examples.  I do see a couple examples that use the Chapter and “Series Volume” fields but would need to look at the originals to see how they are being used and what they represent.  Then you need to make the call which one to use, and adjust the Bibliography template appropriately for what you decide.  It is clear databases and others use the fields differently.    

Chapter is frequently filled in in my library, though not actually shown in the output style I use.

Volume refers to which volume the source itself is within a multivolume publication (e.g., “vol. 2 of Some Book”), while Series Volume refers to which number in a monograph series the publication has (sometimes including all of its individual volumes, sometimes each volume separately).

Ideally, I’d have two separate fields: Subseries Title and Subseries Volume – which would ideally not be any of the Custom fields, since those are sometimes used for various other things.

An example of a source could have the following:

_Reference type: _Book section

Year: 2019

Author: Martínez-Rodríguez, Elena

Title: Anatolian kinship word-pairs and their Mesopotamian connection

Editor: Adiego, Ignacio-Javier; Trabazo, Virgilio García; Vernet, Mariona; Obrador-Cursach, Bartomen; Martínez-Rodríguez, Elena

Book Title: The Luwic dialects and Anatolian: Inheritance and diffusion

Chapter: 7

Pages: 181-203

Series Title: Barcino Monographica Orientalia

Series Volume: 12

Subseries Title: Series Anatolica et Indogermanica

Subseries Volume: 1

In other words, the article is written by Elena Martínez-Rodríguez and appears as chapter 7 in the book The Luwic dialects and Anatolian (edited by Adiego et al.), which is volume 12 of the series Barcino Monographica Orientalia and volume 1 of the series Series Anatolica et Indogermanica (which is a subseries of Barcino Monographica Orientalia). This would then, in my output style, be bibligraphised thus:

Martínez-Rodríguez, Elena. 2019. Anatolian kinship word-pairs and their Mesopotamian connection. In Ignacio-Javier Adiego et al. (eds.),_The Luwic dialects and Anatolian: Inheritance and Diffusion_(Barcino Monographica Orientalia 12, Series Anatolica et Indogermanica 1). 181–203.

It would be so nice if it were possible to add arbitrary fields of one’s own, rather than being limited to eight Custom fields shared by all EndNote users, but used differently by all of them too. For example, I use Custom 1 for Original Year (in the case of reprinted/republished titles), and I had to delete a fair amount of data to clean up that field for this use – quite a few sources had various other types of data in that field, which I had to get rid of.

Yes, I hear you on the custom field limitation/infexibility.  I usually add all of them to the library display and sort on and to figure out which one might be usuable for a reference type.  The problem is, if they change anything, it will mess up everyone’s existing library.  The program has been around for 25 or more years, since DOS! The recent upgrade and ‘library conversion’ was the time when they should have tried this kind of change.  This is the second conversion they have required over the years.  

The other thing to add, is that you can move the contents of one field to a new field (globally) so you can clear but retain the information.