How to cite an article that was re-edited later in an anthology
I current have in ad hoc form the following article to cite
FRIEDMAN, Milton “The methodology of positive economics” (1953) in: HAUSMAN, Daniel M. (Ed.). The philosophy of economics: an anthology. Cambridge University Press, 1994.
What this means is that the original article was published in 1953, but I'm citing the version published in the anthology compiled by Hausman in 1994. Since I don't have access to the original paper in its original context, I wouldn't like to insinuate a deeper level of scholarship in that direction; at the same time it's important to the narrative/argument that this is an old article.
What's canonical BibTeX for this situation?
bibliographies bibtex
asked Mar 11 at 12:55
user8948user8948
82
add a comment |
I current have in ad hoc form the following article to cite
FRIEDMAN, Milton “The methodology of positive economics” (1953) in: HAUSMAN, Daniel M. (Ed.). The philosophy of economics: an anthology. Cambridge University Press, 1994.
What this means is that the original article was published in 1953, but I'm citing the version published in the anthology compiled by Hausman in 1994. Since I don't have access to the original paper in its original context, I wouldn't like to insinuate a deeper level of scholarship in that direction; at the same time it's important to the narrative/argument that this is an old article.
What's canonical BibTeX for this situation?
bibliographies bibtex
asked Mar 11 at 12:55
user8948user8948
82
Can you please show us a short compilable tex code building your bibliography with two bib entrys, one for the old article and one for the new one you have so far?
– Kurt
Mar 11 at 13:00
biblatexhas arelatedfeature that could be used here. Your average BibTeX style does not support that and so you probably have to put the information in thenotefield there.
– moewe
Mar 11 at 13:05
1
I think a "note" field is probably fine for this, though: it really is a note, not bibliographical information as such. You are citing the 1994 revised paper, so adding a note "revised version of paper originally published in 1953" is quite appropriate IMO.
– Paul Stanley
Mar 11 at 13:11
add a comment |
I current have in ad hoc form the following article to cite
FRIEDMAN, Milton “The methodology of positive economics” (1953) in: HAUSMAN, Daniel M. (Ed.). The philosophy of economics: an anthology. Cambridge University Press, 1994.
What this means is that the original article was published in 1953, but I'm citing the version published in the anthology compiled by Hausman in 1994. Since I don't have access to the original paper in its original context, I wouldn't like to insinuate a deeper level of scholarship in that direction; at the same time it's important to the narrative/argument that this is an old article.
What's canonical BibTeX for this situation?
bibliographies bibtex
asked Mar 11 at 12:55
user8948user8948
82
I current have in ad hoc form the following article to cite
FRIEDMAN, Milton “The methodology of positive economics” (1953) in: HAUSMAN, Daniel M. (Ed.). The philosophy of economics: an anthology. Cambridge University Press, 1994.
What this means is that the original article was published in 1953, but I'm citing the version published in the anthology compiled by Hausman in 1994. Since I don't have access to the original paper in its original context, I wouldn't like to insinuate a deeper level of scholarship in that direction; at the same time it's important to the narrative/argument that this is an old article.
What's canonical BibTeX for this situation?
bibliographies bibtex
bibliographies bibtex
asked Mar 11 at 12:55
user8948user8948
82
asked Mar 11 at 12:55
user8948user8948
82
asked Mar 11 at 12:55
user8948user8948
82
asked Mar 11 at 12:55
user8948user8948
82
asked Mar 11 at 12:55
user8948user8948
82
82
Can you please show us a short compilable tex code building your bibliography with two bib entrys, one for the old article and one for the new one you have so far?
– Kurt
Mar 11 at 13:00
biblatexhas arelatedfeature that could be used here. Your average BibTeX style does not support that and so you probably have to put the information in thenotefield there.
– moewe
Mar 11 at 13:05
1
I think a "note" field is probably fine for this, though: it really is a note, not bibliographical information as such. You are citing the 1994 revised paper, so adding a note "revised version of paper originally published in 1953" is quite appropriate IMO.
– Paul Stanley
Mar 11 at 13:11
add a comment |
Can you please show us a short compilable tex code building your bibliography with two bib entrys, one for the old article and one for the new one you have so far?
– Kurt
Mar 11 at 13:00
biblatexhas arelatedfeature that could be used here. Your average BibTeX style does not support that and so you probably have to put the information in thenotefield there.
– moewe
Mar 11 at 13:05
1
I think a "note" field is probably fine for this, though: it really is a note, not bibliographical information as such. You are citing the 1994 revised paper, so adding a note "revised version of paper originally published in 1953" is quite appropriate IMO.
– Paul Stanley
Mar 11 at 13:11
Can you please show us a short compilable tex code building your bibliography with two bib entrys, one for the old article and one for the new one you have so far?
– Kurt
Mar 11 at 13:00
Can you please show us a short compilable tex code building your bibliography with two bib entrys, one for the old article and one for the new one you have so far?
– Kurt
Mar 11 at 13:00
biblatex has a related feature that could be used here. Your average BibTeX style does not support that and so you probably have to put the information in the note field there.– moewe
Mar 11 at 13:05
biblatex has a related feature that could be used here. Your average BibTeX style does not support that and so you probably have to put the information in the note field there.– moewe
Mar 11 at 13:05
1
1
I think a "note" field is probably fine for this, though: it really is a note, not bibliographical information as such. You are citing the 1994 revised paper, so adding a note "revised version of paper originally published in 1953" is quite appropriate IMO.
– Paul Stanley
Mar 11 at 13:11
I think a "note" field is probably fine for this, though: it really is a note, not bibliographical information as such. You are citing the 1994 revised paper, so adding a note "revised version of paper originally published in 1953" is quite appropriate IMO.
– Paul Stanley
Mar 11 at 13:11
add a comment |
0
active
oldest
votes
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "85"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2ftex.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f478888%2fhow-to-cite-an-article-that-was-re-edited-later-in-an-anthology%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
0
active
oldest
votes
0
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
Thanks for contributing an answer to TeX - LaTeX Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2ftex.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f478888%2fhow-to-cite-an-article-that-was-re-edited-later-in-an-anthology%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Can you please show us a short compilable tex code building your bibliography with two bib entrys, one for the old article and one for the new one you have so far?
– Kurt
Mar 11 at 13:00
biblatexhas arelatedfeature that could be used here. Your average BibTeX style does not support that and so you probably have to put the information in thenotefield there.– moewe
Mar 11 at 13:05
1
I think a "note" field is probably fine for this, though: it really is a note, not bibliographical information as such. You are citing the 1994 revised paper, so adding a note "revised version of paper originally published in 1953" is quite appropriate IMO.
– Paul Stanley
Mar 11 at 13:11