8
$\begingroup$

I like to use MathSciNet's BibTeX feature. However, I recently found out that sometimes their BibTeX entry removes the initial zeros on a MR number, and other times it includes the initial zeros. Is there a preferred choice between these two options? Alternatively, is there a reason I'm missing that explains why MathSciNet isn't consistent?

$\endgroup$
3
  • $\begingroup$ @EdwardDunne might be able to answer. If he doesn't see the question here, you could email him with the contact information posted at ams.org/publications/math-reviews/edcommandstaff. $\endgroup$ Mar 30, 2022 at 18:27
  • $\begingroup$ @ZachTeitler I've emailed him. Thanks for the suggestion. $\endgroup$ Mar 30, 2022 at 18:52
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I believe this is inconsequential. If you search for an item with its ID in mathscinet, whether you include an initial 0 (or even ten zeroes) or not has no effect. Just try it, go to mathscinet.ams.org/mathscinet/mathscinet-getitem?mr=ID where you replace ID by the MR number of some article, with or without leading zeroes. $\endgroup$ Mar 30, 2022 at 19:05

1 Answer 1

16
$\begingroup$

In most instances, when displaying items with MR numbers that are less than 1000000, we pad the number by prepending with zeros to obtain a 7-digit number. The numbers, however, are stored just as numbers in the database. When we export the record to either BibTeX or AMSRefs, we use the number, no padding. So, "short" numbers should be the norm for items with MR numbers below 1000000.

$\endgroup$
1
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ This answer is perfect. I'll remove the extraneous 0 from one of my citations. $\endgroup$ Mar 30, 2022 at 20:48

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.