The "academically correct" solution is usually to format that bibliographical item as any other item, with the name which appears on the paper (this is also remarked in the answers to the linked question). Then, you can add a bibliographical note saying that the name is a pseudonym: in
bibtex you can do this by means of the field
note. However, about this, take into account the objections that have been pointed out in the answers and comments to the linked question.
The above solution would roughly correspond to your , with the exact details depending on the chosen style.
Of course, if you are writing a paper for a journal, the style guide might require a different formatting or might not accept notes.
Edit: I've checked The Chicago Manual of Style, 16th edition, and it suggest a slightly different style, more similar to your example :
14.81 Pseudonyms -- unknown authorship. If an author's real name is not known, pseud. (roman, in brackets) may follow the name. (In a
text citation, pseud. is omitted.)
14.82 Pseudonyms -- known authorship. A widely used pseudonym is generally treated as if it were the author's real name.
The real name, if of interest to readers, may follow the pseudonym in
According to the above, your example would become:
Đông, Q. P. [McCawlay, J.D.], “English sentences without overt grammatical subject”, doi: 10.1075/z.63.06don.
The New Oxford Style Manual suggests the same format.
For what concerns LaTeX, if you want to follow the above format, it appears that the
biblatex-chicago supports it. However, it is probably not applicable to specific publications. For instance, the IEEE BibTeX style does not support explicitly pseudonyms, but it has a
note field. The people at TeX.SE can probably give you better information on which is the best way to implement that specific format.