Incorrect article number provided for Nature Communications

[episanty]

For Nature Communications papers, it seems the plugin mixes up the number and pages fields.

As an example, consider this paper: the website gives the following information under 'cite this article'

Kong, F., Zhang, C., Larocque, H. et al. Vectorizing the spatial structure of high-harmonic radiation from gas. Nat Commun 10, 2020 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-019-10014-5

but the plugin generates the following bibtex code on my system:

@article{Kong2019May,
    author = {Kong, F. and Zhang, C. and Larocque, H. and Li, Z. and Bouchard, F. and Ko, D. H. and Brown, G. G. and Korobenko, A. and Hammond, T. J. and Boyd, Robert W. and Karimi, E. and Corkum, P. B.},
    title = {{Vectorizing the spatial structure of high-harmonic radiation from gas}},
    journal = {Nat. Commun.},
    volume = {10},
    number = {2020},
    pages = {1--6},
    year = {2019},
    month = may,
    issn = {2041-1723},
    publisher = {Nature Publishing Group},
    doi = {10.1038/s41467-019-10014-5}
}

The user-facing text on the html, and some of the metadata, includes things like Article number: <span data-test="article-number">2020</span>. However, classing this as the number field on the bibtex will confuse most bibliographic styles -- the number 2020, for this paper, does not refer to a journal issue, but to the sequential paper-by-paper numbering, which should be listed under the pages index:

    volume = {10},
    pages = {2020},

I imagine that Nature Comms could be doing a much better job with their metadata than this, but we're stuck with what they give, I guess. In any case, it would be good for the system to handle this seamlessly.

[Langenscheiss]

Thanks for the bug report. I am currently involved in several other projects while searching for jobs, so unfortunately, BibItNow! does not get the bandwidth it needs at the moment. However, with the transition to manifest v3 looming, I will need to spend time on it. This is when I am going to fix those website related bugs. Sorry for the current delay on any progress.

[episanty]

No rush. I don't think the output of bibitnow should be copied without looking at it with an eye to whatever human intervention might be needed. So I think some level of bugs in the output is not a problem.

(OK, maybe this one is a bit insidious, because one is unlikely to scrutinize the numbers to check that they match what they need to. But the impact is nevertheless limited.)

Thanks for all the great work on this software, and good luck with the job search!