Evaluating sources is an important step of the research process.
The evidence you choose to use for your research should accurately support what you are trying to argue and it should lend credibility to your work. If you cherry pick your sources, or find quotes that "kind of" fit in your paper, that can have the opposite effect.
Use the advice on this page to help guide you as you choose the best sources to help you answer your research question.
Check out this short video (2:34) from Western University on How to Read a Scholarly Article.
Check out this short (3:22) video from the University of Kansas (KU) Libraries to learn about evaluating sources for credibility.
Check out this short video (5:30) from the University of Minnesota for tips on reading scientific articles.
Reports of research studies usually follow the IMRaD format. IMRaD (Introduction, Methods, Results, [and] Discussion) is a mnemonic for the major components of a scientific paper. These elements are included in the overall structure outlined below.
*The pieces making up the acronym IMRaD are marked with an asterisk (*) below.
“Structured abstract” has become the standard for research papers (introduction, objective, methods, results and conclusions), while reviews, case reports and other articles have non-structured abstracts. The abstract should be a summary/synopsis of the paper.
The “why did you do the study”; setting the scene or laying the foundation or background for the paper.
The “how did you do the study.” Describe the --
The “what did you find” --
Place for interpreting the results
[occasionally optional or not required]. Do not reiterate the data or discussion. Can state hunches, inferences or speculations. Offer perspectives for future work.
Names people who contributed to the work, but did not contribute sufficiently to earn authorship. You must have permission from any individuals mentioned in the acknowledgements sections.
Complete citations for any articles or other materials referenced in the text of the article.
Pronounced "IHM-rad", this acronym refers to the four (or five!) major section of an empirical research article. The 'a' can stand for 'and' or sometimes 'analysis.'
I - Introduction
What's this study about? What population, or phenomenon, are we studying? Why are we studying it? What gaps in knowledge exist that make this study necessary?
M - Methods or Methodology
How will we answer the questions posed in the introduction? Who or what are we studying? What group (men, women, adults, children, lower economic class, middle economic class, upper economic class, et c.)? How will we study them: survey, experiment? How will we measure our results? How will we measure our results -- what scales will we use?
R - Results
What were the results of all that measuring? This section of an empirical study journal article is likely to have a lot of tabular data: charts, tables, graphs, et c.
AND
D - DISCUSSION
What's it all mean? What impact do the results have on the field or discipline? What gaps in knowledge have been answered?
Peer review is a process for evaluating research studies before they are published by an academic journal. These studies typically communicate original research or analysis for other researchers.
|
|
Try searching in UC Library Search or a library database and look for options to limit your results to scholarly/peer-reviewed or academic journals. You can also check Ulrichsweb, see below for details...
Many databases offer the option to search for "peer-reviewed" journal articles - those are academic articles reviewed by the authors' peers for accuracy during the editing and publishing process.
If you are using a database that does not have this filter option, or if you find an article citation somewhere else, you can check if the article was published in a "peer-reviewed" journal or magazine by using Ulrichsweb.

If your publication does not appear in Ulrichsweb, please contact a librarian for more help.
(Click here to view a larger version of this graphic)

Text description of "SIFT: Evaluating Information in a Digital World" for web accessibility
This material was adapted from an graphic created by Annie Zeidman-Karpinski, University of Oregon Libraries. It is based on the work of research scientist Mike Caulfield, who created the SIFT methodology.
When evaluating sources of information
for accuracy and credibility, there are many aspects of the source that you can consider. One source that might not fit your research question could still be useful to someone else, so it's not helpful to think about "good" or "bad" sources. Most importantly, if a resource is from a trustworthy author or organization and helps you answer your research question, then you have identified a useful source. Please contact your instructor or a librarian if you would like more help!
Copyright @ The Regents of the University of California. All rights reserved.
