Abstract

Do readers of popular scientific texts appreciate references to the original sources? If they do, which reference system is most preferred? In order to answer these questions, we did two experiments. In the first one, four versions of a short popular science article were created: one without references and three with references-one incorporated references in running text, one in a separated text block at the end, and one between parentheses. The parentheses version was rated highest. In the second experiment, two versions of another popular science article were evaluated: one with references in parentheses and one with references in footnotes. This time, the footnote version was rated highest. We conclude that there is reason to doubt the received wisdom that common readers prefer omitting references or incorporating them in running text. Readers seem to favor the ancient and much-maligned mechanism of the footnote for providing background information.

Journal
IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication
Published
2001-01-01
DOI
10.1109/47.946465
CompPile
Open Access
Closed
Topics
Export

Citation Context

Cited by in this index (0)

No articles in this index cite this work.

References (8) · 2 in this index

  1. Handboek stijl. Adviezen voor aantrekkelijk schrijven
  2. Rhetoric Review
  3. Rhetoric Review
  4. Als lezen pijn doet [When reading hurts]
    NRC Handelsblad
  5. 10.1075/pbns.35.08len
Show all 8 →
  1. 10.3172/jie.13.1.76
  2. Bronverwijzingen in populair-wetenschappelijke teksten
  3. Bronverwijzingen in populair-wetenschappelijke teksten