Thanks for that tip. Worked wonderfully with a better BibDesk entry than importing the one downloaded from PLOS and one that could be “Previewed" without any amendments.
Regards, Trevor. <>< Re: deemed! > On 23 Sep 2021, at 19:15, Dr Eberhard W Lisse <[email protected]> wrote: > > I find that > > > https://www.doi2bib.org/#/doi > > works very well for single citations. > > On 2021-09-23 19:46 , Christiaan Hofman wrote: >>> On 23 Sep 2021, at 19:36, Trevor Jenkins <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> Downloaded the (auto-generated) citation from >>> https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.1003763 >>> >>> The import into BibDesk was successful but the TeX Preview breaks >>> with various error depending upon what fields are “adjusted”. >>> >>> >>> Regards, Trevor. >>> >>> <>< Re: deemed! >> That is more a question about tex generation. If the data is >> problematic for the tex generation, you should update the data. That >> is the main function of the tex preview: to check that it is valid for >> tex. So I am not precisely sure what your question is. >> Christiaan > > -- > Dr. Eberhard W. Lisse \ / Obstetrician & Gynaecologist > [email protected] / * | Telephone: +264 81 124 6733 (cell) > PO Box 8421 Bachbrecht \ / If this email is signed with GPG/PGP > 10007, Namibia ;____/ Sect 20 of Act No. 4 of 2019 may apply > Book your Covid-10 Vaccination at https://c19.idtoday.com.na > > > _______________________________________________ > Bibdesk-users mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bibdesk-users _______________________________________________ Bibdesk-users mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bibdesk-users
