I need to use the package natbib. I want to have a citation of the form [number] in certain places, normally citations are handled by superscripts. I can use \citenum, but that omits the square brackets. If I insert them by hand (namely, [\citenum{key}]), there is spacing between the brackets and the number. How can I remove the spacing?
@Skillmon probably yes, at least some suggestions for code changes to the author would be fine. I looked at it some time ago, but hadn't really the time. Basically (apart from a few small trivial changes) the \tw@define@menu@macro must be rewritten.
@JosephWright turns out it isn't handled by catoptions, but menukeys does check whether the delimiter should be a backslash and if so \detokenizes the input before it is handed to catoptions.
@JosephWright If I build a stack for the value of a sequence, is it fine to use \seq_push:No \my_seqstack_seq \my_seq and \seq_pop:NN \my_seqstack_seq \my_seq?
@DavidCarlisle No, but its like finding a book in an archive: It might be filed correctly, but letting people know it is there is still pretty cool and useful.
@JosephWright Slightly off topic question. How do you cite Acta Cryst articles these days? Do I use the journal name at the time it was published (ie Acta Cryst. as the journal title, and the A or C in the volume number), or do I cite the modern title of the journal as it is today "Acta Crystallogr., Sect. E: Struct. Rep. Online" or "Acta Crystallogr., Sect. A: Found. Adv.,"?
@JosephWright I mean, for modern papers that form is now wrong, as they have split them into separate journals (probably since everyone kept citing them as separate journals)
@JosephWright What? No, that was since I got to grad school. Technically they were one journal before I started, but with letter designated issues (Thus, Acta Cryst, A56), and a few years ago they moved to being separate journals (Thus today: G. M. Sheldrick, Acta Crystallogr., Sect. A: Found. Adv., 2015, 71, 3–8.)
@Canageek A matter of semantics ;) I was thinking of when they split into A, B, C rather than just a single journal (like J Chem Soc splitting into A, B, C, D then Perkin/Dalton/Faraday/Chem Commun)
@JosephWright They've moved their bibtex exporter to use the newer form. Not the full name, but they have moved the A into the Journal field. My issue is they've moved it to that for ALL papers, not just one after they split the journals into ACTUALLY being their own thing. So should I cite all of them in the modern form, or look up what year the split happened and cite them one way before that and one way after
@Canageek Like I said, semantics :) I'd stick to the shorter form exclusively, as that's how they've been cited for ever; it's not like it will confuse anyone
@Canageek I think they'd say the split happened back in the 1960s, like I said :)
@JosephWright Would have to edit the journal line to remove the letter, then the volume line to add it, which would mean using awk and that is just too much work. Also I find the short form confuses people more
(Also using the short form means two of my citations are ONE letter off from one another and then people keep getting them mixed up)
I'd rather go with G. M. Sheldrick, Acta Crystallogr., Sect. A: Found. Adv., 2015, 71, 3–8. and G. M. Sheldrick, Acta Crystallogr., Sect. C: Struct. Chem., 2015, 71, 3–8.
@JosephWright I wouldn't be surprised if it becomes more popular over the next few years. Have you seen George speak? He is about a million years old and can't maintain that codebase forever.
@Canageek Seriously: for molecular systems one can almost always draw a good figure in black-and-white (packing is different), and there's the whole issue of colour and people with colour blindness
@JosephWright We typically stick to the RSC and ACS. Canadian guidelines don't require open access if you put the preprint online via an institutional archive, which we do (or do in theory, my boss often puts it off). For my 3D printing papers I put them up on ChemrXiv
@Canageek We are allowed something similar from some funders; I really don't like it, as the reason we have journals is to make finding articles easy. (I think asking a reader to chase down the institution of the authors of each paper is a joke: really, that's 'open'???)
@JosephWright The ChemrXiv version shows up first on google for me. I agree ChemrXiv is the better solution for finding the paper. My solution would be mandate that journals link to the institutional version.
@JosephWright But we'd go broke paying to open access all of our papers. $2K each for a lot of journals as I recall? Times 5-10 papers a year? We'd have to fire a grad student to pay for it.
On topic: All of a sudden things are copying from my thesis like so: ` n i t , d u e t o t h e n e c e s s i t y of h av i n g t o m an u al l y ad d e v e r y c on n e c t or . An ot h e r d ow n s i d e of`
Which also means search doesn't work. What have I done? Happens with microtype turned off, cfr-lm turned off....
@JosephWright I mean, I've looked at the ACS income statements. They are NOT hurting for money. I would have no issue with paying journals for access if the prices were fair and reflective of the expense of running them.
