Re: [O] org-cite and org-citeproc

[Andreas Leha]

Hi,

Richard Lawrence <address@hidden> writes:
> Hi Eric and all,
>
> Eric S Fraga <address@hidden> writes:
>
>> On Wednesday,  1 Apr 2015 at 08:49, Andreas Leha wrote:
>>
>> [...]
>>
>>> I am a happy biblatex user for all my 'own' documents.  But (as was
>>> mentioned previously) scientific journals that accept latex submissions
>>> will require bibtex and won't support biblatex.  So, I'd say that one of
>>> the other methods (preferably bibtex) is still necessary.
>>
>> Ahhh, yes, I'd forgotten that journals expect bibtex.  This is a key
>> requirement for me as well therefore.
>
> Can someone suggest how a parenthetical citation with common prefix and
> suffix data, like
>
>   [(cite): For more on this topic, see:; @Work1 for a review; @Work2;
>   and references therein.] 
>
> should map to plain BibTeX?  Maybe there is no general answer to this
> question, but what would a reasonable default be?  Maybe this?
>
>   (For more on this topic, see: \cite{Work1} for a review, \cite{Work2},
>   and references therein.)
>
> That is, just place the prefix and suffix data in the surrounding text,
> inserting commas after the part for each individual work, and wrapping
> the whole thing in parentheses?
>

To me that seems a reasonable thing to do.  At least I would write it
probably in such a way.

Depending on the citation style ("author, year") I might add a comma
after the citation, so that it becomes

  (For more on this topic, see: Max Mustermann, 2015, for a review, 
   The Internet Consortium, 2014, and references therein.)

compared to

  (For more on this topic, see: Max Mustermann, 2015 for a review, 
   The Internet Consortium, 2014 and references therein.)

But:
- I am no native English speaker and comma placement in English
  is very unclear to me
- my citation requirements are quite low, I guess...

Best,
Andreas