It seems that there is still no way to do this properly, which quite frankly boggles the mind, since it’s an inherent problem in any output style.
Leanne’s suggestion seems to be misunderstanding Series Volume, taking it to be the word ‘Series’ before the field Volume; the separator and link adjacent space must be changed to a simple space. But even then, unfortunately, it doesn’t work. Say you have the following three possible variations of the same reference:
Author: John Smith
Title: Lovely Book
Place of publication: Oxford
Publisher: OUP
(a)
Series Title: [empty]
Series Volume: [empty]
(b)
Series Title: Excellent Series
Series Volume: [empty]
(c)
Series Title: Excellent Series
Series Volume: 5
That is, one version where the book is not part of a monograph series; one version where it is an unnumbered volume in a monograph series; and one version where it is a numbered volume in a monograph series.
What you’d want is for those three variations to appear as follows (or in whatever output style variation you prefer):
Smith, John._Lovely Book_. Oxford: OUP
Smith, John._Lovely Book_(Excellent Series). Oxford: OUP
Smith, John._Lovely Book_(Excellent Series 5). Oxford: OUP
But this is not what you actually get. With Leanne’s suggestion, you get this:
Smith, John._Lovely Book_). Oxford: OUP
Smith, John._Lovely Book_(Excellent Series). Oxford: OUP
Smith, John._Lovely Book_(Excellent Series 5). Oxford: OUP
– which is almost right, except for the ending parenthesis after the book title.
This would logically appear to be an inherent shortcoming in the way templates are written, with only one isolator and one linker available: the ending parenthesis must somehow depend not on the immediately preceding Series Volume field, but on the Series Title field further back.
Can it really be that there is no way to do this? That manually editing the bibliography after formatting is the only way to achieve proper series formatting?