Writing style when discussing other people's research in discussion/introduction I was editing a friend's manuscript and I noticed that they do something similar to what I have been told not to do when referring to previous work done in the field of interest being discussed. I would often refer to the citation i.e. the study and then go on to say what they found in the study For example, I would sometimes say:

Smith et al. (2020) modeled how the life history of species x was affected by environmental pressure, they concluded that increased pressure would also lead to earlier maturation.

I have been told by different advisors that this is considered &quot;bad writing&quot;, in that it is generally preferred to refer to the work at the end of a sentence as opposed to the beginning. However, no-one has explained why this is the case. I passed this information onto my friend as well, but I am curious as to why?
An example of how my advisors edited the above sentence:

Modelling of the life history of species x showed that increased environmental pressure would also lead to earlier maturation (Smith et al. 2020)

I understand that technically the edited version sounds better, my question is why specifically it is considered bad form to mention your citation/reference at the beginning of the sentence?
Neither alternative is good or bad.
I would put the citation first if the author or the history is important:

Darwin [On the Origin of Species, 1859] argued that natural selection ...

but the citation last if you just want to tell your reader where they can look to check your facts:

Darwin's finches continue to evolve [J. Wiener, The Beak of the Finch,
1995 (reprint)].

So it's a case by case choice. In this case I think your advisor is right.