Correct way to enter volume and issue number into database

[rickl]

I just posted this to Support before noticing the forums (it might be good to add forums to the menu at the top of the homepage). I thought it would be more appropriate to post it here, where other people may be able to take advantage. So if Sonny people notice this first, please feel free to ignore my support request.

I'm wondering whether it's better to enter, for example, 23(1) or 23 (1) for a journal's volume and issue information.

Well done getting these forums set up!

Rick

[Jon]

Hi Rick,

You can use either form (i.e. one with a space between the volume and the issue or not). Bookends will delete the space after the volume number if you choose to output it alone. Note that if a format tells Bookends to include the issue number with the volume, it will output exactly what you entered in the Volume field (so the space after the volume number will only appear if you entered it that way).

Jon
Sonny Software

[rickl]

Thanks, Jon, and sorry to have you answering here and by email!

I completely forgot to mention what prompted me to try inputting both formats in the first place. In APA format, volume number is supposed to be italicized, while issue number shouldn't be. Bookends italicizes both of them, so I wondered whether leaving a space would allow Bookends to "see" the difference and open the way to fixing the problem.

Rick

[Jon]

Ah, I see.

That's because the format we provide just outputs the volume field, without distinguishing between the volume and the issue.

If you want their styles to be different, you must edit the format to something like this:

a. (d). t. f, v(i), p-.

*and*

turn OFF "include issue number with volume" in the second tab of the format definition.

Then you will get what you want...

Jon
Sonny Software

[rickl]

If you want their styles to be different, you must edit the format to something like this:

a. (d). t. f, v(i), p-.

*and*

turn OFF "include issue number with volume" in the second tab of the format definition.

That worked like a charm. I can see that my understanding of the programme is still very superficial. Thanks as always for your detailed help.

Rick

[jblander]

Is there any chance that volume and issue will be separate fields in Bookends v8? Most of my data sources have them as separate fields, and I would prefer to store them separately.

Will there be any additional fields or additional user-defined fields in v8?

This is a key feature for me, although I'm pretty much sold on Bookends, now that I see what a disaster is passing for Endnote v8.

[Jon]

Is there any chance that volume and issue will be separate fields in Bookends v8? Most of my data sources have them as separate fields, and I would prefer to store them separately.

Will there be any additional fields or additional user-defined fields in v8?

There will be 4 user-defined fields in Bookends 8 (two more than Bookends 7). You can use any of these for issue if you like, but it a waste of a good field! And you will have to edit any affected format and filter accordingly. Personally, I think having the issue as a "virtual field" is handy, but of course we allow enough flexibility that you can arrange the data any way you like.

Jon
Sonny Software

[jblander]

I suspect that your motivation for keeping volume and issue in the same field is because, as you mention in the user guide, "many on-line databases (i.e., Medline, Dialog) include an issue number in parentheses after the volume number". I just happen to be using different databases in which this is not the case. So you as the programmer have to decide whether I (and others like me, of course) have to massage my data using a user-defined field, or others using, e.g., Medline, would have to massage theirs to break up the data, a la "source" fields.

However, I guess I'm not exactly clear on what you mean by having virtual field for the issue, though. Is it because I can use the "i" field operator when outputting data, and because there are built-in functions that operate on the parentheses to parse the data automatically, even though it's stored in the same field on the screen?

[Jon]

However, I guess I'm not exactly clear on what you mean by having virtual field for the issue, though. Is it because I can use the "i" field operator when outputting data, and because there are built-in functions that operate on the parentheses to parse the data automatically, even though it's stored in the same field on the screen?

Yes. I mean that the Volume field does double-duty, containing both the volume and isssue (if you want). The import filters will deal with this automatically for you, and it saves you having a dedicated field for each (freeing up a field for something else). But as I said, if you want to have volume and issue in separate fields, Bookends will let you do this.

Jon
Sonny Software