I've been constructing some .bst files with custom-bib today. The differences between different journals, not only regarding references, and the fierceness with which they say they will reject anything which does not conform (though this might not be true in practice) are amazing, especially considering how unimportant such things should be. I know that the confusion---what this thread is trying to do away with---leads some authors NOT to follow the advice of the individual journals, but rather just send in something which looks halfway OK. Of course, this means that the manuscript is probably processed conventionally, which is an additional burden for the journal, so it seems to me that journals should a) take more interest in the standardisation of journal macros stuff and b) support or require BibTeX, natbib and other things which allow flexibility and functionality while minimising author coding error and wasted time. Of course, it is also in the interests of the authors, but I really don't feel like preaching to my colleagues until there is more standardisation among the journals, since the number of things one must take into account is so large that I can understand authors submitting just `reasonably formatted' manuscripts; maybe the journals get what they deserve in this respect. I know that some LaTeX people at some scientific journals are aware of the LaTeX list and even this thread; it would be interesting to know if any have actually been following this thread. (If you don't want to announce yourself to the list, please email me privately and I'll keep everything confidential.) -- Phillip Helbig Email .......... [log in to unmask] Nuffield Radio Astronomy Laboratories Tel. ..... +44 1477 571 321 (ext. 297) Jodrell Bank Fax ................. +44 1477 571 618 Macclesfield Telex ................. 36149 JODREL G UK-Cheshire SK11 9DL Web .... http://www.jb.man.ac.uk/~pjh/ My opinions are not necessarily those of NRAL or the University of Manchester.