Two different articles with same author and date are identified as duplicate?!

(Hasan Al Shehab) #1

I am using Jabref 3.8.2, but when import articles for the same author and in the same year, Jabref identifies these articles as duplicates. How can I solve this problem?

(Stefan Kolb) #2

The best solution right now is to ignore this duplicates if you can detect them as non duplicates as a user. The duplicate detection sometimes behaves a little bit wierd and results in false positives.

(Hasan Al Shehab) #3

Thanx Kolb, the problem of this issue is that JabRef import articles with the same author and year and assigning the same author’s name for both in bib file (@Article{ }). JabRef should assign different names since each article has completely different DOI?!!

(Stefan Kolb) #4

With names you are talking about assigning the BibTeX keys?!

(Hasan Al Shehab) #5

Yes, for example, you can import these two articles with different DOI, and you will see that JabRef will identify them as duplicates
1- 10.1103/PhysRevB.87.195439
2- 10.1103/PhysRevB.87.205427

(Bernhard Kleine) #6

I have tested this on the JabRef 3.8.2/windows 7 6.1 amd64 /Java 1.8.0_121 and these two entries are not duplicates.
I used to generate the entries with the DOI facility and controlled by applying Quality->Find duplicates.

(Hasan Al Shehab) #7

Thank you for the feedback!
well, you are right in this case, but these two articles have the same article names in the BibTex source (@Article{Van_Duppen_2013}). However, JabRef should import them with different names so they can be cited separately and correctly. So I think JabRef should add like a,b,c to the articles names when they have the same author and date. I can not cite those articles in LaTex appropriately!

(Tobias Diez) #8

So if I understand you correctly, then the generated bibtex key of the imported entries is not unique? In this case I suppose it is a bug and would appreciate if you could open a bug report at with the proper steps to reproduce it. Thanks!

(Hasan Al Shehab) #9

Yes, exactly. That what I was trying to explain.

(Tobias Diez) #10

Thanks for opening a bug report! Follow-up is now