Combining Duplicate Endnotes for Reference-List

I’ve been using Scrivener for academic writing for a while, and I quite like that you can export a Draft as plain-text and automatically get your references formatted and numbered correctly in a little reference section at the end of the document - it means I don’t have to go through the hassle of using a special format and then importing into Word, using EndNote Format and manually fixing EndNote’s references (which always seem to be incorrectly formatted in some way or missing important information). The text export option is an excellent way to avoid all that (and means I don’t need to buy Word just to export my draft >_>) but it takes me a long time to comb through my text afterward to remove any references that are duplicates, and changing the numbers in the brackets manually.

I try to avoid it by just citing each paper once, and later referring to the author by name or otherwise avoiding adding another footnote for the same paper, but that’s not really efficient or sustainable…

So, how do you guys do it?

Or, if it’s currently impossible with just Scrivener, does anyone have an AppleScript or somesuch which will do it? Might I ask KB nicely to add a checkbox in the Export Draft panel which allows the user to choose to combine duplicate Footnotes into the one numbered endnote (if there isn’t one already, somewhere)? I’m sure I’m not the only one who would benefit from that simple feature.

Hi,

I don’t think I quite understand what you want to do here… Endnotes (like footnotes) refer to particular point in the text, so surely if you combined two endnotes, you would be losing their reference in the text? E.g:

At that point in history there were various reports of flying cheesecakes in the media.[1] ... Following Churchill's speech, several thousand strawberry cheesecakes were said to have fallen from the sky.[2]

[1] See Robert Trebor, [i]The Great Cheesecake Debate[/i] (Publickers, 1972).
[2] See Robert Trebor, [i]The Great Cheesecake Debate[/i] (Publickers, 1972).

If the above was rolled into one endnote, it would become:

At that point in history there were various reports of flying cheesecakes in the media.[1] ... Following Churchill's speech, several thousand strawberry cheesecakes were said to have fallen from the sky.

[1] See Robert Trebor, [i]The Great Cheesecake Debate[/i] (Publickers, 1972).

So that you have suddenly lost the second reference to the text altogether, which you wouldn’t want.

Unless you mean:

[code]

At that point in history there were various reports of flying cheesecakes in the media.[1] ... Following Churchill's speech, several thousand strawberry cheesecakes were said to have fallen from the sky.[1]

[1] See Robert Trebor, [i]The Great Cheesecake Debate[/i] (Publickers, 1972).

But that seems very strange - I may be being ignorant here, but I’ve never heard of the same reference number to an endnote being repeated in the text like this.

Surely the correct form is this:

At that point in history there were various reports of flying cheesecakes in the media.[1] ... Following Churchill's speech, several thousand strawberry cheesecakes were said to have fallen from the sky.[2]

[1] See Robert Trebor, [i]The Great Cheesecake Debate[/i] (Publickers, 1972).
[2] Trebor, [i]op cit.[/i]

Or some such. The latter would be up to your references/citations manager, I guess…

All the best,
Keith

Actually, what I had in mind was exactly what you had at the end there. All I meant was turning this:

[code]This is a bit of text with a reference to [1], and further down a little bit more, past some other references [2], yet another footnote with the exact same text [3].

[1] D. Hasselhoff, “Why they shouldn’t have made another Knight Rider”, Associated Press, 2002.
[2] J. Travolta, “The Art of Dance”, Pulp Printing, 2007.
[3] D. Hasselhoff, “Why they shouldn’t have made another Knight Rider”, Associated Press, 2002.
[/code]

into this:

[code]This is a bit of text with a reference to [1], and further down a little bit more, past some other references [2], yet another footnote with the exact same text [1].

[1] D. Hasselhoff, “Why they shouldn’t have made another Knight Rider”, Associated Press, 2002.
[2] J. Travolta, “The Art of Dance”, Pulp Printing, 2007.
[/code]

That is, an option that allows the user to export the Draft such that footnotes with the exact same contents count as the one EndNote, and remain numbered correctly.

It’s an elegant solution that bypasses the need to stick EndNote tags throughout and then fill them in using Word.

Also, maybe it’s me who’s being ignorant, but I don’t think it’s uncommon for scientific papers to have a numbered list of references at the end of the paper and to reference them by number throughout the text. At least, it seems to happen a lot in computing papers. It’s just an alternative to listing surnames in your reference list, then citing by surname throughout.