LaTeX template for articles in APA format

Instructions.md

Compile this template by executing the following in a command shell:

  pdflatex test && biber test && pdflatex test && pdflatex test

This template uses biblatex and biber instead of good old BibTeX. The bibliography files (*.bib) can have the same format (although biblatex allows using some interesting extensions). However, the biblatex+biber combo is much more powerful than good-old BibTeX (e.g. support for multiple bibliographies in one document) and comes with great documentation.

Suggestions for improvements welcome.

test.bib

@article{MalsburgVasishth2011,
  author = {von der Malsburg, Titus and Shravan Vasishth},
  sortname = {Malsburg},
  title = {What is the scanpath signature of syntactic reanalysis?},
  journal = {Journal of Memory and Language},
  volume = {65},
  number = {2},
  pages = {109--127},
  year = {2011},
  doi = {10.1016/j.jml.2011.02.004},
  abstract = {Which repair strategy does the language system deploy when it gets garden-pathed, and what can regressive eye movements in reading tell us about reanalysis strategies? Several influential eye-tracking studies on syntactic reanalysis (Frazier & Rayner, 1982; Meseguer,Carreiras, & Clifton, 2002; Mitchell, Shen, Green, & Hodgson, 2008) have addressed this question by examining scanpaths, i.e., sequential patterns of eye fixations. However, in the absence of a suitable method for analyzing scanpaths, these studies relied on simplified dependent measures that are arguably ambiguous and hard to interpret. We address the theoretical question of repair strategy by developing a new method that quantifies scanpath similarity. Our method reveals several distinct fixation strategies associated with reanalysis that went undetected in a previously published data set (Meseguer et al., 2002).  One prevalent pattern suggests re-parsing of the sentence, a strategy that has been discussed in the literature (Frazier & Rayner, 1982); however, readers differed tremendously in how they orchestrated the various fixation strategies. Our results suggest that the human parsing system non-deterministically adopts different strategies when confronted with the disambiguating material in garden-path sentences.},
  keywords = {eyemovements, method, parsing, scanpaths, syntacticreanalysis},
}

test.tex

\documentclass[man]{apa6}
\usepackage[american]{babel}
\usepackage[utf8]{inputenc}
\usepackage[T1]{fontenc}
\usepackage[backend=biber,useprefix=true,style=apa,url=false,doi=false,eprint=false]{biblatex}
\DeclareLanguageMapping{american}{american-apa}
\addbibresource{test.bib}

\title{Full title}
\shorttitle{Short title}
\leftheader{Author 1, Author 2}
\twoauthors{Author 1}{Author 2}
\twoaffiliations{Affiliation 1}{Affiliation 2}
\authornote{Here are the acknowledgements.}
\keywords{keyword1, keyword2}
\abstract{Here’s the abstract.}

\begin{document}
\maketitle
This is the body of the manuscript \parencite{MalsburgVasishth2011}.

\printbibliography[]
\end{document}