Make Paperpile count empty (or non-paperpile) footnotes


I have an issue regarding the consideration of footnotes that are either still empty or don’t contain a citation created with paperpile (e.g. remarks). My problem is that paperpile does not seem to count these and only seems to refer to the footnotes that contain a paperpile citation when naming the first footnote that has the full citation of a source.

As an example:

  1. [Paperpile citation of source1]
  2. Remark with no paperpile citation
  3. [1st Paperpile citation of source2]
  4. [Paperpile citation of source3]
  5. [2nd Paperpile citation of source2]

In footnote 4, Paperpile will now cite “source2 (n 2)” instead of “source2 (n 3)”.

Another example:

  1. [Paperpile citation of source1]
  2. Remark with no paperpile citation
  3. [Paperpile citation of source1]

Here, Paperpile will turn footnote 3 into an “ibid.”, thus incorrectly referring to footnote 2.

As far as I can tell, this happens because Paperpile does not derive the footnote number from the document footnote items but rather count the footnotes created with Paperpile.

I’m wondering if there is any way to make Paperpile count the empty / non-paperpile footnotes?

Thanks in advance!

Welcome to our forum, @Lena_14! Your assessment is correct – our numbering does not derive from the document’s numbering, but I’m not sure the behavior you describe is expected. Are you working in Google Docs, or with our MS Word plugin? Which citation style are you using? Let us know.

Thank you!

I’m working with Google Docs and currently using OSCOLA citation style. However, I have experienced this exact problem with several citation styles.

But if the numbering is derived only from the footnotes created with paperpile, the behavior makes sense, doesn’t it? Is there any way to avoid this?

I’m attaching a screenshot of one of the issues. As you can see, the source Paradiso/Rollè/Trombetta is first cited in fn. 4. Fn. 3 is still empty (or does not contain a paperpile footnote), so it is not counted by paperpile. In fn. 6, where I cite Paradiso et al. again, paperpile will name fn. 3 as the first citation, which is incorrect.

Hi Paperpile Team and Community,

is there any way someone can help me resolve this issue? I’m really struggling with this.

Is there a function I’m not seeing or at least some kind of hack to circumvent this?

Thanks in advance!

Apologies for not getting back to you here, @Lena_14. Upon double-checking with the team, I can confirm the behavior you describe is indeed expected and there’s no way/workaround to circumvent it at the moment. That being said, we’ve added the matter to our UX backlog for future consideration.