What to do about eprint information?

adamliter commented 9 years ago

Here's another one that might make more sense for some sort of working group to discuss.

If an entry contains any sort of eprint information (such as a JSTOR link), it is printed by the current implementation (2802b8743193c14a97691d4234d515881020da74). For the time being at least, I think the best option would be to not print it (i.e., to set \ExecuteBibliographyOptions{eprint=false} in biblatex-sp-unified.bbx).

It might, however, be worthwhile to print this information in some cases. For example, I don't think Linguistic Inquiry articles had DOIs until 1998. Nonetheless, LI articles prior to 1998 are still associated with a stable JSTOR URL, so it might make sense to print that just in case an article doesn't have a DOI. If an article does have a DOI, a JSTOR stable URL is sort of superfluous.

This would be something for the working group to decide, I suppose. Alternatively, if you think this is a better option than just setting eprint=false for the time being, it could be implemented with the bibmacro for doi+eprint+url given in the MWE below.

Let me know what you think, and I'm happy to open a PR. Or, if you'd prefer, you can just make the changes yourself, too, since this one is pretty short and quick.

MWE

% !TEX encoding = UTF-8 Unicode
% !TEX TS-program = arara
% arara: pdflatex
% arara: biber
% arara: pdflatex

\begin{filecontents*}{\jobname.bib}
@article{merchant2013:voice,
    Abstract = {Elided VPs and their antecedent VPs can mismatch in voice, with passive VPs being elided under apparent identity with active antecedent VPs, and vice versa. Such voice mismatches are not allowed in any other kind of ellipsis, such as sluicing and other clausal ellipses. These latter facts appear to indicate that the identity relation in ellipsis is sensitive to syntactic form, not merely to semantic form. The VP-ellipsis facts fall into place if the head that determines voice is external to the phrase being elided, here argued to be vP; such an account can only be framed in approaches that allow syntactic features to be separated from the heads on which they are morphologically realized. Alternatives to this syntactic, articulated view of ellipsis and voice either undergenerate or overgenerate.},
    Author = {Merchant, Jason},
    Doi = {10.1162/LING_a_00120},
    Eprint = {23358089},
    Eprinttype = {jstor},
    Journaltitle = {Linguistic Inquiry},
    Issn = {0024-3892},
    Langid = {english},
    Langidopts = {variant=american},
    Pages = {77--108},
    Title = {Voice and Ellipsis},
    Volume = {44},
    Number = {1},
    Date = {2013}}
@article{bever1997:unaccusatives,
    Abstract = {Spanish speakers who scan their syntactic representation to find a word from the subject NP in a just-comprehended sentence recognize the word faster in unaccusative-verb sentences than in unergative-verb sentences. This is consistent with an analysis of unaccusatives as raising verbs with a trace: the trace corresponds to an extra mental representation of its antecedent. Spanish speakers who scan their conceptual representation to find the target word recognize it more slowly in unaccusative-verb sentences: this may indicate that the conceptual representation of unaccusatives is more complex than that of unergatives. Overall, the results give experimental support to linguistic frameworks that differentiate conceptual from linguistic levels of representation and to syntactic models that postulate NP-trace.},
    Author = {Bever, Thomas G. and Sanz, Montserrant},
    Eprint = {4178965},
    Eprinttype = {jstor},
    Journaltitle = {Linguistic Inquiry},
    Issn = {0024-3892},
    Langid = {english},
    Langidopts = {variant=american},
    Pages = {69--91},
    Title = {Empty Categories Access Their Antecedents during Comprehension},
    Subtitle = {Unaccusatives in {Spanish}},
    Volume = {28},
    Number = {1},
    Date = {1997}}
\end{filecontents*}

\documentclass{article}

\usepackage{hyperref} % for clickable jstor link

\usepackage[
    backend=biber,
    bibstyle=biblatex-sp-unified,
    citestyle=sp-authoryear-comp,
    maxcitenames=3,
    maxbibnames=99
]{biblatex}
\addbibresource{\jobname.bib}

%\renewbibmacro*{doi+eprint+url}{%
%  \iftoggle{bbx:doi}
%    {\printfield{doi}}
%    {}%
%  \newunit\newblock
%  \iftoggle{bbx:eprint}
%    {%
%      \iffieldundef{doi}% only print eprint information if doi doesn't exist
%        {\usebibmacro{eprint}}%
%        {}}
%    {}%
%  \newunit\newblock
%  \iftoggle{bbx:url}
%    {\usebibmacro{url+urldate}}
%    {}}

\begin{document}
\textcite{bever1997:unaccusatives,merchant2013:voice}
\printbibliography
\end{document}

chbrown commented 8 years ago

Makes sense. There are no used eprint fields in our source materials, and only 1 in my entire set of over 7500 bibliography entries (of which only a fraction are rendered in any given S&P article) from submissions published in the last ~5 years, so it seems to be a relatively rare field anyway.

adamliter commented 8 years ago

:+1:

semprag / biblatex-sp-unified

What to do about eprint information? #10

MWE