Understanding the Credibility Issue
When thinking about the credibility of a source there are two important criteria:
1. Does the author have expertise/training/credentials in the given subject matter?
This is particularly important when evaluating web content, as anyone can create a page. See if the website has an "About" section that may give informatin about the author(s) of the site and any training or credentials they may have.
2. Has the source been reviewed by an outside party before publication?
There are three general categories of review:
A. No review-the source has not been reviewed by an outside party before publication.
B. Edited-the source has been reviewed by an editor prior to publication.
C. Peer review-the source has been reviewed by a panel of experts prior to publication.
|
Type of Information |
Description |
How Reviewed |
|
Books |
Can provide comprehensive information about a subject, but since they take awhile to publish, are not usually as up to date as other sources |
Edited |
|
Magazines |
Usually written for a popular (ie. not academic or scholarly) audience; may be general or special interest. Available in print or electronic form. |
Edited |
|
Scholarly Journals |
Usually written for a very scholarly audience interested in a very specific subject. |
Peer reviewed |
|
Newspapers |
Written for a general audience. Available in print and electronic form. |
Edited |
|
.com websites |
A website sponsored by a for-profit entity. Many personal websites can be found in the .com domain. |
No review process or hard to determine. |
|
.edu websites |
A website sponsored by an educational institution (K-12 or college/university). There may be personal webpages of students and faculty found on .edu sites. |
No review process or hard to determine |
|
.gov websites |
A website created and maintained by a governmental body. |
May undergo review, but it will be an internal, rather than external review |
|
.org websites |
A website created and maintained by a non profit organization |
No review process or hard to determine |
|
Blogs |
“A website where entries are published over time and usually organized chronologically” (Miller-Cochrane & Rodrigo, 2009) |
No review process |
|
Wikis |
Allow users to create webpages without any programming knowledge; often used for collaborative writing. Example: Wikipedia |
Usually no review process |
|
Video, audio, podcasts |
Multimedia files |
Usually no review process |
|
Email lists |
A group with a similar interest communicating via email. |
No review process, although the listserv may be moderated. |
Adapted from: Miller-Cochrane, SK., & Rodridgo, S. (2009) The Wadsworth Guide to Research. Boston: Wadsworth.
Loading...
