Quick ways to get the most from a source and how to evaluate the quality and reliability

 Characteristics:  Read in the order presented by authors  Take whatever information as it is presented  Advantages:  Little effort or knowledge needed before reading  Drawbacks:  Too much information to be meaningful  Time spent on information not necessary for study

 Characteristics:  Read for predetermined types of information (hunting vs gathering)  Advantages:  Faster evaluation of if a source fits your needs  Better understanding of the material  Drawbacks:  Requires forethought and planning

 Go “hunting” – make a list of what you are looking for  Look up terms you do not know  Circle or underline important key words  Take notes in the margins; ask questions, make comments  Some headings and titles can be made into questions  Write answers to those questions in your notebook  Reorganize information into visual maps, outlines, concept maps (McGraw Center, n.d.)

 First Pass –The Bird’s Eye View  About minutes  Read the title, abstract and introduction  Skim the section headings  Read the conclusions  Scan the references for papers you have read or found in searches  Should be able to answer the “5 C’s”  Category – type of research  Context – context of the problem and relevant science underlying study  Correctness – validity of study, data and assumptions  Contributions – what has this study added to the knowledge base  Clarity – is it well written

 Second Pass –The Details  About 1 hour  Examine the figures and graphs for data and trends  Use active reading strategies to re-read the Introduction and Conclusion  Use active reading strategies to read the other sections of the paper  Make a note of other papers you wish to read from the references  Third Pass – Reconstruction  4-5 hours  Identify and challenge every assumption and conclusion statement  Re-evaluate each experiment and analysis and how the results were presented (Keshav, 2007)

 Consider the Purpose and Audience of the study  The technical level of the paper might not be appropriate for your purposes  What the aim of the paper is may indicate if it will have the information you need.  Consider the author  What are the author’s motivations  Is there a potential bias to be considered?  What are their credentials and affiliations  University affiliations and many papers by that author in the field might be good signs  What if there is no author?  Is it a legitimate corporate author with no obvious bias?  Consider the publisher and/or journal  Do they require peer review?  Is there potential bias?

 Other questions to ask…  What role will this study play in your research?  Consider the publication date – is it still applicable?  Primary or Secondary source?  Examine the Design and Methodology  Does the design and method make sense for the study?  What level of validity is present? (internal and external)  How much and what kind of evidence in present?  Examine the Data and Conclusions  Does the data/evidence support the conclusions?  Is there any questionable logic or analysis in the treatment of the data?  Are there credible arguments contrary to the conclusions?

 10 Steps for Evaluating Scientific Papers from “The Logic of Science”  Scholarly Open Access maintains a data base of suspect journals  Harvard Guide to Using Sources

 Many of the same considerations for print and electronic publications can be applied to websites as well. Special considerations include:  What is the agenda of the site in question?  Is the main purpose of the site commercial? Does it sell a product or service?  Is the site dedicated to a particular organization of government agency?  Is the site a newsgroup or list server for a special interest group?  Does the site’s sponsoring organization have a predictable point of view?  There is a website rubric available that can be used to rate websites with some of these things built into the rating system.

Keshav, S. (2007). How to Read a Paper, ACM SIGCOMM Computer Communications Review, 37 (3), The McGraw Center, Princton, Active Reading Strategies reading.pdf reading.pdf Palmquist, M. & Connor, P. ( ). Evaluating Colorado State University. Retrieved from