Could you also add a call to test the format here: https://github.com/rstudio/rticles/blob/master/tests/testthat/test_formats.R#L42-L48

Would it be okay if I contribute or submit the requested revisions to this PR? I would like to get the IEEEtrans format available in rticles.

@coatless Yes, please. Go ahead. Due to work overload here at school, I had planned to do the revisions at the end of this month.

@Emaasit: Could you give me write access to your fork? Or would you prefer if I PR'd against your fork and on merge those changes would appear here?

@coatless I have added you as a collaborator to my fork. That gives read/write permissions.

Addressed the concerns in 136c182.

As a side note, @Emaasit, did you want to add in support for the journal, technote, peerreview, and peerreviewca paper modes? Or just keep it focused on the conference mode?

@coatless Thanks for those patches. Two more fixes are needed before it's perfect.

• The sections should be numbered: How about we just add number_sections: true in the yaml header

• The References should be numbered

Regarding support for other articles formats, I think we should add only the journal format for now.

Good catches by the way.

1. Why not remove this variable entirely as IEEE requires section to be numbered?
2. Regarding citations:

• The IEEE style will not work with biblatex since the package is anti .bst. However, it seems as if using \usepackage[style=ieee]{biblatex} to get around this hiccup is not possible either. I'll test this out on a different machine tomorrow. An alternative solution to address this issue is to just fall back and use the bibtex backend.

• Meanwhile, the natbib setup can easily be handled by:

\usepackage[numbers]{natbib}
\bibliographystyle{IEEEtranN}

where IEEEtranN is the IEEEtranN.bst from IEEEtran.

Regarding supporting the journal in addition to conference mode, I'll add a few variables in that allow a paper mode to be specified. The main task to supporting different modes is being able to handle the different styles of author listings and allowing for IEEE keywords.

This PR looks quite a mature contribution...is there any plans to merge it?
(The merge conflict is trivial to solve...I did it in my own cloned repo)