I was reading a post in a Rmarkdown forum where the writer said that he had
been using footnotes with a citation embedded to produce a pdf.. His
editor has requested a change from footnotes to endnotes and he cannot get
it to word.
Rmardown uses pandoc to convert from Rmarkdown to pdf. I thought that this
should fairly easy to do in LyX or LaTeX but it does not seem so.
If I add
\usepackage{endnotes}
\let\footnote=\endnote
to the LaTeX preamble I lose the footnote and citation but still get the
endnote indicator.
I have attached a MWE and sample bib file.
Any suggestions would be very welcome.
--
John Kane
Kingston ON Canada
@article{mallapatyChinaBansCash2020,
title = {China bans cash rewards for publishing papers},
volume = {579},
rights = {2021 Nature},
url = {https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-00574-8},
doi = {10.1038/d41586-020-00574-8},
abstract = {New policy tackles perverse incentives that drive ‘publish
or perish’ culture and might be encouraging questionable research practices.},
pages = {18--18},
number = {7797},
journaltitle = {Nature},
author = {Mallapaty, Smriti},
urldate = {2021-12-20},
date = {2020-02-28},
langid = {english},
note = {Bandiera\_abtest: a
Cg\_type: News
Number: 7797
Publisher: Nature Publishing Group
Subject\_term: Policy, Publishing, Funding},
keywords = {Publishing, Funding, Policy},
file = {Full Text PDF:/home/john/Zotero/storage/XWISAMZY/Mallapaty -
2020 - China bans cash rewards for publishing
papers.pdf:application/pdf;Snapshot:/home/john/Zotero/storage/KTDC55B8/d41586-020-00574-8.html:text/html},
}
@report{caulfieldDoesDebunkingWork2020,
title = {Does Debunking Work? Correcting {COVID}-19 Misinformation on
Social Media},
url = {https://osf.io/5uy2f},
shorttitle = {Does Debunking Work?},
abstract = {A defining characteristic of this pandemic has been the
spread of misinformation. The World Health Organization ({WHO}) famously called
the crisis not just a pandemic, but also an “infodemic.” Why and how
misinformation spreads and has an impact on behaviours and beliefs is a complex
and multidimensional phenomenon. There is an emerging rich academic literature
on misinformation, particularly in the context of social media. In this
chapter, I focus on two questions: Is debunking an effective strategy? If so,
what kind of counter-messaging is most effective? While the data remain complex
and, at times, contradictory, there is little doubt that efforts to correct
misinformation are worthwhile. In fact, fighting the spread of misinformation
should be viewed as an important health and science policy priority.},
institution = {Open Science Framework},
type = {preprint},
author = {Caulfield, Timothy},
urldate = {2022-08-23},
date = {2020-05-25},
langid = {english},
doi = {10.31219/osf.io/5uy2f},
keywords = {vaccination},
file = {Caulfield - 2020 - Does Debunking Work Correcting COVID-19
Misinform.pdf:/home/john/Zotero/storage/6HPDDKVJ/Caulfield - 2020 - Does
Debunking Work Correcting COVID-19 Misinform.pdf:application/pdf},
}
@article{liuJournalRetractionsUnique2018,
title = {Journal Retractions: Some Unique Features of Research
Misconduct in China},
volume = {49},
issn = {1198-9742},
url = {https://utpjournals.press/doi/10.3138/jsp.49.3.02},
doi = {10.3138/jsp.49.3.02},
shorttitle = {Journal Retractions},
abstract = {This study used data from the Retraction Watch website and
from published reports on retractions and paper mills to summarize key features
of research misconduct in China. Compared with publicized cases of falsified or
fabricated data by authors from other countries of the world, the number of
Chinese academics exposed for research misconduct has increased dramatically in
recent years. Chinese authors do not have to generate fake data or fake peer
reviews for themselves because paper mills in China will do the work for them
for a price. Major retractions of articles by authors from China were all
announced by international publishers. In contrast, there are few reports of
retractions announced by China's domestic publishers. China's publication
requirements for physicians seeking promotions and its leniency toward research
misconduct are two major factors promoting the boom of paper mills in China.},
pages = {305--319},
number = {3},
journaltitle = {Journal of Scholarly Publishing},
author = {Liu, Xiaomei and Chen, Xiaotian},
urldate = {2022-12-03},
date = {2018-04},
note = {Publisher: University of Toronto Press},
keywords = {research misconduct, China, journal retraction, paper mill},
}
@article{candal-pedreiraRetractedPapersOriginating2022,
title = {Retracted papers
