oscola.pdf. - Mirrors.med.harvard.edu

desirable, in such a case, to enter the author with an extra set of braces,
to prevent it being turned into ‘Oxford, U of’ in the bibliography!
@book{franks66,
}
author = {{University of Oxford}},
title = {Report of Commission of Inquiry},
date = {1966},
publisher = {OUP},
shorthand = {Franks Report},
• Reports of parliamentary committees (see oscola, 40) require special
treatment, which is provided by giving them an entrysubtype of
parliamentary. Further details are given below.
• Commission Documents (see oscola, 41) also require special treatment,
which is provided by giving them an entrysubtype of comdoc. See below.
• Other reports—such as Command Papers and Law Commission Reports
are simply given an entrytype of report.
The Basic Report
Use either the author or the institution field for the institution producing
the report. There is a difference. In a full citation, either will get printed as if
the author, so
@report{bribery313,
}
institution = {Law Commission},
title = {Reforming Bribery}
...
will produce ‘Law Commission, Reforming Bribery ..., as will
@report{bribery313,
}
author = {{Law Commission}},
title = {Reforming Bribery}
...
But on subsequent citations, whereas a report with an author will get cited as
‘Author (n x)’, one which has an institution will be cited as ‘Title (n x)’. It’s
up to you which seems preferable in any particular case.
If your report has a number (for instance it is a command paper) you
should include this as the number. It’s up to you whether you prefer to use
the series field as well (for instance for command papers), or to include the
series information in the number field. Either will work perfectly well so far
as formatting is concerned; a purist would probably prefer to separate number
and series. So
Reports 66
[102]