In my .bib files I add
@preamble { "\def\etalchar#1{\textsuperscript{#1}}" }
This ensures that the superscript "+" is properly italicized.
The issue with the default definition \newcommand{\etalchar}[1]{$^{#1}$} by BibTeX is that the + will not be italicized even if the citation is inside italicized text, e.g., in
\begin{lemma}
Hello~\cite{EC:BGGHNS14}.
\end{lemma}
The "Hello [BGG" and "14]." are italicized, but the superscript "+" in the middle is not. It's ugly and interferes with readability as italicized "G" will overlap with up-right "+".
Using \def\etalchar#1{\textsuperscript{#1}}, as commented in the BibTeX code, ensures that the "+" uses the proper style of the surrounding text (italicized, boldfaced).
However, upon submission to IACR CiC, the server renders HTML as BGG{\textsuperscript{+}}14, instead of BGG⁺14 (U+207A).
There is no good workaround at this moment --- fortunately I didn't actually have any italicized citations in my submission.
In my
.bibfiles I addThe issue with the default definition
\newcommand{\etalchar}[1]{$^{#1}$}by BibTeX is that the+will not be italicized even if the citation is inside italicized text, e.g., inThe "Hello [BGG" and "14]." are italicized, but the superscript "+" in the middle is not. It's ugly and interferes with readability as italicized "G" will overlap with up-right "+".
Using
\def\etalchar#1{\textsuperscript{#1}}, as commented in the BibTeX code, ensures that the "+" uses the proper style of the surrounding text (italicized, boldfaced).However, upon submission to IACR CiC, the server renders HTML as
BGG{\textsuperscript{+}}14, instead ofBGG⁺14(U+207A).There is no good workaround at this moment --- fortunately I didn't actually have any italicized citations in my submission.