Radford, S.J.E., Giovanelli, R., Sebring, T.A., Zmuidzinas, J., 2009. CCAT, in: Lis, D.C., Vaillancourt, J.E., Goldsmith, P.F., Bell, T.A., Scoville, N.Z., Zmuidzinas, J. (Eds.), Submillimeter Astrophysics and Technology: a Sym- posium Honoring Thomas G. Phillips, p. 113.
So booktitle is being used where series should be used and booktitle isn't appearing after the "in:". You need to have the series "ASP Conf. Ser." or "Proc SPIE" to work out where the book came from. Note also the volume is not present. Surely this isn't a deliberate part of the Elsevier style?
Another example. This time ADASS:
Petry, D., CASA Development Team, 2012. Analysing ALMA Data with CASA, in: Ballester, P., Egret, D., Lorente, N.P.F. (Eds.), Astronomical Data Analysis Software and Systems XXI, p. 849.
Again, no ASP Conf Ser, no volume and booktitle in wrong place.
So booktitle is being used where series should be used and booktitle isn't appearing after the "in:". You need to have the series "ASP Conf. Ser." or "Proc SPIE" to work out where the book came from. Note also the volume is not present.
Is this a deliberate part of the Elsevier style? There are three lines commented out in the inproceedings section:
Uncommenting the first two lines fixes the problem completely (depending on what order you want the bits in). This suggests that there has historical been some uncertainty as to whether the ASP Conf Ser and Proc SPIE items should be written out (otherwise why leave them in but commented out). I honestly don't understand how a reference can be complete without the series and volume number included.
From an email from @timj of 2013-09-14
I see that INPROCEEDINGS isn't working right.
See eg:
Radford, S.J.E., Giovanelli, R., Sebring, T.A., Zmuidzinas, J., 2009. CCAT, in: Lis, D.C., Vaillancourt, J.E., Goldsmith, P.F., Bell, T.A., Scoville, N.Z., Zmuidzinas, J. (Eds.), Submillimeter Astrophysics and Technology: a Sym- posium Honoring Thomas G. Phillips, p. 113.
So booktitle is being used where series should be used and booktitle isn't appearing after the "in:". You need to have the series "ASP Conf. Ser." or "Proc SPIE" to work out where the book came from. Note also the volume is not present. Surely this isn't a deliberate part of the Elsevier style?
Another example. This time ADASS:
Petry, D., CASA Development Team, 2012. Analysing ALMA Data with CASA, in: Ballester, P., Egret, D., Lorente, N.P.F. (Eds.), Astronomical Data Analysis Software and Systems XXI, p. 849.
Again, no ASP Conf Ser, no volume and booktitle in wrong place.
So booktitle is being used where series should be used and booktitle isn't appearing after the "in:". You need to have the series "ASP Conf. Ser." or "Proc SPIE" to work out where the book came from. Note also the volume is not present.
Is this a deliberate part of the Elsevier style? There are three lines commented out in the inproceedings section:
Uncommenting the first two lines fixes the problem completely (depending on what order you want the bits in). This suggests that there has historical been some uncertainty as to whether the ASP Conf Ser and Proc SPIE items should be written out (otherwise why leave them in but commented out). I honestly don't understand how a reference can be complete without the series and volume number included.