On Mon, 24 May 2021 17:53:49 -0400
Rik Kabel
This is intended. Or rather, it is a side-effect of the intended behavior.
If you add an editor ("editor={Baz, Bar}") you will get something like:
Foo, B. (1983). Title of the paper. In B. Baz (Ed.), /Booktitle/. Author.
And if you then add a publisher ("publisher={Paymefirst}") you will get:
Foo, B. (1983). Title of the paper. In B. Bar (Ed.), Booktitle. Paymefirst.
The APA presumes that you have both an editor and a publisher for pieces contained in other works. It calls for the use of the author as publisher if no publisher is present. It is silent about what to do if you have no editor.
It looks like a missing editor field should be caught. What should the rule be? Actually, @inproceedings should not be used without an editor - makes no sense. If the author of the paper happens to be the editor, then the .bib data file should define this with an editor= field. We can change the behavior if a clear case can be made as to what fallback would make sense. Keep in mind the dictum: "garbage in/garbage out"... Alan