Citation Format Matters: Undergraduate Student Comprehension of Peer‐Reviewed Scientific Manuscripts

Abstract

Primary research articles from peer‐reviewed journals are often used as teaching tools in undergraduate science courses. With their unique writing style, field specific terminology, and complex topics, students often struggle to comprehend the articles. Educators use a variety of methods to teach students how to improve their comprehension including annotating the articles, asking targeted questions, or providing specific strategies for reading them. However, one aspect often overlooked in student understanding of primary research articles is how the in‐text citation format affects reading comprehension. The purpose of this study was to determine if in‐text citation format in scientific journals affects reading comprehension in undergraduate students enrolled in science courses. We hypothesize that more complex in text citations (e.g. parenthetical “Author, et. al, Year”) will decrease reading comprehension compared to simpler in text citations (e.g. numeric “[1]”).Undergraduate students (n = 30) enrolled in an upper‐division science course were tasked with reading the introductions of two primary research articles with differing in‐text citations in a randomized, cross‐over design. Each article was modified to have numeric or parenthetical, Author‐Year, in‐text citations. Other than style of in‐text citation, the articles were formatted as published. Each student had 6 minutes to read an article with one in‐text citation format, and then 6 minutes to take a quiz to determine his or her understanding of the article. Students then had 6 minutes to read the second article with the other in‐text citation format followed by 6 minutes to take its quiz. Following the readings and quizzes, students completed a questionnaire that asked about basic demographic information, perceived understanding of the article, and difficulty of reading the article.Student reading comprehension as assessed by post‐reading quizzes was 34% higher when reading articles with numeric in‐text citations compared to articles with parenthetical, Author‐Year, in‐text citations (p = 0.03). The difference in reading comprehension was most pronounced in articles that students perceived as more difficult to read and understand regardless of in‐text citation format. Students performed 70% worse when reading difficult articles with Author‐Year in‐text citations compared to numeric citations (p = 0.01). These results highlight the importance of seemingly minor formatting decisions by editors and journals on reader understanding. Educators should consider providing undergraduate students with primary research articles with modified, simpler, in‐text citations to improve their reading comprehension.