updated output styles

I'm disappointed with the lack of progress in improving the output styles. The current home page and its subsections, do not even include a link to the output styles. After continual fustration in trying to find this webpage, I finally resorted to a google search.

From the dates, it seems that no updates have been made since 2004. I'm interested in the IEEE output style, but only one journal posted in 1999 exists and this file has only a limited selection of reference types and is riddled with errors. I am currently writing a paper for 'Entropy' published by MDPI, which does not exist. I was able to make a style starting from ACS, but this is cumbersome. If there isn't a commitment to continually updating and improving the styles, a basic feature of the product, how can users have confidence they'll be able to use the product effectively?

Others have pointed out the awkwardness of multiple RTF files when formating a word document.

The front-end interface integrating search, reference, and notes is terrific. But if the back-end basic functionality to import perfectly formatted references into the most commonly used word processor is not top-notch, this becomes a serious barrier to having confidence in the tool.

Updated Styles

Hi guys,
I have one comment and one question.

  • I know many people in the forum have already told about this but it is quite important indeed. I really do not understand why all efforts have been focused on the functionality of BS and none of then in the styles. We have been waiting for years a new list of styles, you have told us that a new one will be published but there is nothing at all. The current stylus list is (except for six styles) as old as 2004, almost eight years. That's too much time. There are new versions (e.g. APA 6th) of the many editors and journals. Other reference systems have a very good updated style list. I do not want to complain about BS or compare it with other, BS is great and a lot better than other research software suits. I just want to focus on this guys: It doesn't make sense at all to provide great tools for integrating the references and develop our documents and articles if we don't have a comprehensive and updated style list to print the final version of the article. For example, the most obvious change in the last years is the doi code. I have the code properly registered at the database but I can't use because of the styles. I know, the very easy solution is to create the style but that's not a real solution, it works for me but the software should provide this option for printing the documents. I want to repeat this: it doesn't make sense to provide users with great tools if we can't generate the final document properly by using the current standards and styles. Isn't it? I really encourage you to expend some time and efforts for doing this once and for all. I already said this in another post but we users could help with this. It would be great whether you included the Lecture Notes series of Springer. I think there is big lack regarding this, more than 6500 vol. justifie it
  • And now my question. I have different authors with a pattern name like these: Name1 Name2 LastName1 LastName2 AND Name1 LastName1 LastName2. When I was working with BS8 and print the bibliography it worked quite good, e.g. with Harvard Style it always formatted like this: LastName1, X. Y., i.e. take into account the last name with no worries about compound names. But now, with BS9 if I print the same paper or document it takes the second last name for the final bibliography. Why this can happen? What am I doing wrong? This is a huge problem because the only way I have found to go through this is putting a hyphen in the middle of the last names, of course the printed bibliography looks like LastName1-LastName2 X.Y. or LastName1-LastName2 X. Could you guys give some advice about this. I have more than 1500 references and I can not fixed all of them manually.

OK. That's all for now. Hope my opinion can be useful and you guys realized that it is time to put the styles issue a step forward.

Willington

For version 10, we plan to

For version 10, we plan to update reference types and styles. For your question, can you give an example instead of using Name1 Name2? Please also let me know which style was used. So I can create a sample record and test them with the same style in version 8 and 9. Thanks, Paul

still no updates on styles

Another 2 years have gone by, and still no adequate updates have been made to the styles database.

Two things should occur ASAP: 1) a serious effort to develop more complete styles 2) a wiki type database where users can directly update and edit the existing styles. The suggestion in the version 10 manuals, that users email styles to support@biblioscape.com for upload is an antiquated process.

For example, the IEEE style only includes formatting for journal articles. The book style ignores the editors and treats the title of the book as journal article.

I agree. These are the areas

I agree. These are the areas we will work on for version 11.

I strongly support this.

I strongly support this. Especially because there are many new styles supported by the latest editions of the common guides but not easily represented by Biblioscape. This is especially true for may online styles. For example, see here for Chicago 16th (for which there is no ready style at all):

http://www.chicagomanualofstyle.org/tools_citationguide.html

Biblioscape 9 will have an

Biblioscape 9 will have an improved style editor. Some styles will also be updated. Thanks, Paul