IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication Jan 2001

A note on the evaluation of footnotes and other devices for background information in popular scientific texts

F. Jansen ; A. Van Lijf ; E. Toussaint

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
assessment
Export
BibTeX RIS

Citation Context

Cited by in this index (0)

No articles in this index cite this work.

References (8) · 2 in this index

  1. Burger (1997)
    Handboek stijl. Adviezen voor aantrekkelijk schrijven
  2. Connors (1999)
    The rhetoric of citation systems—Part II: Competing epistemic values in citation
    Rhetoric Review
  3. Connors (1998)
    The rhetoric of citation systems—Part I: The development of annotation structur…
    Rhetoric Review
  4. Kohnstamm (1966)
    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. van Lijf (1997)
    Bronverwijzingen in populair-wetenschappelijke teksten
  3. Toussaint (1998)
    Bronverwijzingen in populair-wetenschappelijke teksten
CrossRef global citation count: 2 View in citation network → Build reading path →

Related Articles

  1. Assessing Writing Jul 2026
    LAWE-CL2: Multi-agent LLM-based automated writing evaluation system integrating linguistic features with fine-tuning for Chinese L2 writing assessment ↗
    Xuelin Wang; Qihao Yang; Yuxin Hao; Zhijun Wang; Sijia Guo
    assessment artificial intelligence multilingual writers
  2. Assessing Writing Jul 2026
    Investigating the impact of ChatGPT-assisted self-assessment on college students' writing development: Insights from diverse linguistic backgrounds ↗
    Hamidreza Moeiniasl
    assessment artificial intelligence
  3. Argumentation May 2026
    Do You Want to Build a Straw Man?: Evidentiary and Argumentative Modes of the Straw Man Fallacy ↗
    Eugen Octav Popa
    discourse analysis assessment
  4. Written Communication May 2026
    Beyond Co-Regulation: Interplay as a Methodological Framework for Examining Self-Regulation in Generative AI-Assisted Writing ↗
    Ryan Roderick; Susan Tanner
    writing pedagogy collaborative writing assessment empirical research artificial intelligence
  5. Journal of Response to Writing Apr 2026
    Examining Automated Writing Evaluation Error Coverage in Relation to Uptake and Retention ↗
    Mehrzad, Mohaddeseh; Rahimi, Mohammad; Link, Stephanie
    genre theory writing pedagogy teacher development revision assessment artificial intelligence multilingual writers grammar and mechanics