20
\documentclass[authoryear]{elsarticle}
\begin{document}
\begin{frontmatter}
\title{A Very Clever Paper Title}

\author[add1]{Author1}
\ead{email1@domain.ca}
\author[add2, add3]{Author2}
\ead{email2@domain.ca}
\author[add2, add3]{Author3}
\ead{email3@domain.ca}


\address[add1]{Department of Redundancy Department}
\address[add2]{Centre for Study of Things}
\address[add3]{Department of Interests}

\end{frontmatter}
\end{document}

In the above case, how can I merge affiliations for Author2 and Author3 if they are equal?

Stephen
  • 14,890
Rajesh Shetty
  • 201

1 Answers1

24
  • Spaces after the comma in the optional argument of \author are not supported by class elsarticle. ☹
  • Also the class does not generate a rerun warning, the letters for the affiliations are not yet known in the first LaTeX run.

A. Example without merging

\documentclass[authoryear]{elsarticle}
\begin{document}
\begin{frontmatter}
\title{A Very Clever Paper Title}

\author[add1]{Author1}
\ead{email1@domain.ca}
\author[add2,add3]{Author2}
\ead{email2@domain.ca}
\author[add2,add3]{Author3}
\ead{email3@domain.ca}

\address[add1]{Department of Redundancy Department}
\address[add2]{Centre for Study of Things}
\address[add3]{Department of Interests}
\end{frontmatter}
\end{document}

Result A

B. Two affiliations in one line

\author[add1]{Author1}
\ead{email1@domain.ca}
\author[add2]{Author2}
\ead{email2@domain.ca}
\author[add2]{Author3}
\ead{email3@domain.ca}

\address[add1]{Department of Redundancy Department}
\address[add2]{Centre for Study of Things; Department of Interests}

Result B

  • Disadvantage: The second affiliation in the line gets lost visually. It is not clear, that the both authors have two affiliations.

C. Affiliations in two lines

\author[add1]{Author1}
\ead{email1@domain.ca}
\author[add2]{Author2}
\ead{email2@domain.ca}
\author[add2]{Author3}
\ead{email3@domain.ca}

\address[add1]{Department of Redundancy Department}
\address[add2]{%
  \begin{tabular}[t]{@{}l@{}}
    Centre for Study of Things\\
     Department of Interests 
  \end{tabular}% 
}

Result C

  • Disadvantage: IMHO better than the previous variant, but it is not clear at the first glance that there are two affiliations under "b" and that both authors have two affiliations.

Summary: I prefer the first version A, clear and simple.

Heiko Oberdiek
  • 271,626
  • Thanks @Heiko Oberdiek for very helpful answer. I do a have a similar question here. Would highly appreciate if you have a look on this and provide any answer. Thanks – MYaseen208 Apr 15 '16 at 16:20