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 originating from paper mills: cross sectional
study},
volume = {379},
issn = {1756-1833},
doi = {10.1136/bmj-2022-071517},
shorttitle = {Retracted papers originating from paper mills},
abstract = {{OBJECTIVES}: To describe retracted papers originating from
paper mills, including their characteristics, visibility, and impact over time,
and the journals in which they were published.
{DESIGN}: Cross sectional study.
{SETTING}: The Retraction Watch database was used for identification of
retracted papers from paper mills, Web of Science was used for the total number
of published papers, and data from Journal Citation Reports were collected to
show characteristics of journals.
{PARTICIPANTS}: All paper mill papers retracted from 1 January 2004 to 26 June
2022 were included in the study. Papers bearing an expression of concern were
excluded.
{MAIN} {OUTCOME} {MEASURES}: Descriptive statistics were used to characterise
the sample and analyse the trend of retracted paper mill papers over time, and
to analyse their impact and visibility by reference to the number of citations
received.
{RESULTS}: 1182 retracted paper mill papers were identified. The publication of
the first paper mill paper was in 2004 and the first retraction was in 2016; by
2021, paper mill retractions accounted for 772 (21.8\%) of the 3544 total
retractions. Overall, retracted paper mill papers were mostly published in
journals of the second highest Journal Citation Reports quartile for impact
factor (n=529 (44.8\%)) and listed four to six authors (n=602 (50.9\%)). Of the
1182 papers, almost all listed authors of 1143 (96.8\%) paper mill retractions
came from Chinese institutions and 909 (76.9\%) listed a hospital as a primary
affiliation. 15 journals accounted for 812 (68.7\%) of 1182 paper mill
retractions, with one journal accounting for 166 (14.0\%). Nearly all (n=1083,
93.8\%) paper mill retractions had received at least one citation since
publication, with a median of 11 (interquartile range 5-22) citations received.
{CONCLUSIONS}: Papers retracted originating from paper mills are increasing in
frequency, posing a problem for the research community. Retracted paper mill
papers most commonly originated from China and were published in a small number
of journals. Nevertheless, detected paper mill papers might be substantially
different from those that are not detected. New mechanisms are needed to
identify and avoid this relatively new type of misconduct.},
pages = {e071517},
journaltitle = {{BMJ} (Clinical research ed.)},
shortjournal = {{BMJ}},
author = {Candal-Pedreira, Cristina and Ross, Joseph S. and
Ruano-Ravina, Alberto and Egilman, David S. and Fernández, Esteve and
Pérez-Ríos, Mónica},
date = {2022},
pmid = {36442874},
keywords = {Humans, China, Asians, Cross-Sectional Studies, Databases,
Factual, Hospitals},
file = {Full Text:/home/john/Zotero/storage/CP3TCBHU/Candal-Pedreira et
al. - 2022 - Retracted papers originating from paper mills
cro.pdf:application/pdf},
}
simple_biblatex example.lyx
Description: application/lyx
-- lyx-users mailing list lyx-users@lists.lyx.org http://lists.lyx.org/mailman/listinfo/lyx-users
