credible sources of information for a research paper

Home > The Ultimate Student Guide To Finding Credible Sources

Tips for Online Students , Tips for Students

The Ultimate Student Guide To Finding Credible Sources

Updated: June 19, 2024

Published: January 1, 2020

When it comes to writing a research paper, it’s crucial that you use credible sources to make sure that the information you are stating is actually true. Knowing the difference between credible sources and unreliable sources doesn’t always come so easily with endless information flooding the internet. Thankfully, there are some simple tips that you can use to ensure that you are always using credible sources for research.

What is a Research Paper?

A research paper is a piece of academic writing that uses original research on a specific topic. There are many different types of research papers, ranging from a high school term paper to a master’s thesis or doctoral dissertation.

Photo by  Wallace Chuck  from  Pexels

How to start a search for sources, 1. start simple.

If you’re wondering how to find sources for a research paper, the easiest and best way to start is simple! Just try browsing through some common search engines to see what you find.

2. Cross Wikipedia off

Wikipedia, although it’s a massive pool of information, should always be avoided when writing a research paper since it allows the public to edit information. Sites such as these often run the risk of lacking accuracy, and is not one of the most credible sources for research.

3. Yes to scholarly databases

Scholarly databases are your best friend when it comes to finding credible sources for research. Online scholarly databases that can be trusted and are known to provide useful information for students include LexisNexis and EBSCO.

4. Newspapers and magazines

Although sometimes biased, newspapers and magazines can also be a great place to find information about current events.

5. The library

While the library seems to be the most obvious place to find information, somehow it’s often forgotten when it comes to research in the modern age. Don’t forget how useful it can truly be!

Types of Credible Sources for Research

1. what are some credible websites.

Many online sources do not necessarily contain information that is correct or has been checked. That’s why it’s of utmost importance to make sure that you’re using the right websites for your research, with government and educational websites generally being the most reliable.

Credible sources for research include: science.gov, The World Factbook, US Census Bureau, UK Statistics, and Encyclopedia Britannica.

2. What are some credible journal articles?

When it comes to journal articles, determining how credible they are comes much easier than other sources. This is generally due to the fact that many of these websites will include valuable information such as how many times the article has been cited, and if its been peer reviewed.

Some great examples of reliable websites for journal articles include Google Scholar, Oxford Academic, Microsoft Academic, Cornell University Library, and SAGE Publishing.

If you are ever not sure how to find credible sources, then there’s the CRAAP test, which takes into account the Currency, Relevance, Authority, Accuracy and Purpose of the article. Take all of these factors into consideration before using a source and determining whether or not it’s credible enough. Even if it takes more time, you’ll be saving yourself tons of time in the long run by not using unreliable sources.

Photo by  Canva Studio  from  Pexels

3. what are some credible news sources.

When it comes to news articles, more caution must be taken since it’s hard to know which sources are truly reliable and unbiased. The CRAAP test is also useful in this type of article for research.

A few examples of credible news sources include The New York Times, Bloomberg, and The Washington Post.

The Credibility of a Source

As you search for your research information, you will surely come across the question of how to find credible sources for a research paper. Here are some criteria to focus on to ensure that you only use the most credible of sources.

1. What’s the depth of it?

Always look at the depth of an article, not just the written content. See how long the article is, and if it contains the necessary information such as an abstract, a reference list, and documented data.

2. Who is reading it?

When judging the credibility of an article, it’s important to always ask yourself who the target audience of the article is. Sometimes, sources have a specific goal in mind and it can create certain biases.

3. What’s the goal?

Just as you should do with the audience, also ask yourself what the article is trying to achieve. What is their ultimate goal and how are they persuading you of that?

4. Who wrote it?

Always ask yourself who wrote the article and how reputable they are in the specific field. Look at what other published works they have as well.

5. Can it be trusted?

Overall, it’s key to ask yourself how reputable the source is. What kind of website is it published on? Look at the big picture.

6. Is it relevant to now?

Look at the date of the article, or about the specific things they are mentioning in the article. If it’s from a few years ago, it’s probably not too relevant to your current research.

7. Can it be proven?

While an article may sound incredibly convincing, many people have a way with words and persuasion. Stop and ask yourself whether or not what they are claiming can actually be proven.

Photo by  bruce mars  from  Pexels

How to evaluate source credibility.

By using unreliable sources in your research, it can discredit your status, which is why it’s incredibly important to make sure that any information you are using is up-to-date and accurate.

Here’s how to find credible sources.

1. What is a credible source?

Generally, materials that have been published within the past 10 years are considered to be credible sources for research. Another important factor to consider is the author — if they are well known and respected in their specific fields, that’s also generally a sign that the article is credible. Educational and government-run websites (.gov, .edu) tend to also be a safe source to use, as well as academic databases. Google Scholar is also a no-fail source for reliable information.

2. What is a potentially unreliable source?

Anything that is out of date, meaning it’s been published more than 10 years ago should be avoided. Materials published on social media platforms such as Facebook or personal blogs don’t tend to be the most credible. Always make sure that an article contains proper citations and that the website you are using ends in .com or .org.

Free Resources For Learning

There are many free resources for research available known as open educational resources . They are licensed for free use, with the intention of teaching. They can be determined as credible sources for research if they have a Creative Common license, and if the author has proven to be an expert in their field. Always make sure that the content you are using contains no biases.

Sites For Scholarly Research

When performing scholarly research, it’s extra important to make sure that your sources are credible. Government-run research is considered credible, but beware of any political sites. University and educational websites also tend to be reliable, but still take everything you read with a grain of salt. Company websites also tend to be reliable, although their ultimate goal is usually to promote a product. Organizations which are .org websites can be professional and reliable, however, sometimes they also have their own interests.

Which Sites Can Be Relied On

The internet has no shortage of information out there. That’s why you’ll need these handy tips to determine which to use, and how to distinguish through the vast choices without feeling overwhelmed.

List of Credible Research Sources to Consider

1. government entities.

These websites tend to be reliable since they are highly regulated. Examples include the CIA World Factbook and the United States Justice Statistics.

2. Research Think Tanks

Examples of reliable research think tanks include Rand Corporation, Pew Research Center and The Milken Institute.

3. Academic Libraries and Databases

ProQuest, Scopus, and Jstor are great examples of academic libraries and databases that can be trusted.

4. Professional Standards Organizations

The American Bar Association and The American Psychological Association (APA) are highly credible sources when it comes to professional standards.

How to Write a Research Paper: Step-by-Step

Now that you’re an expert on finding credible sources for research, you’re ready to go! But how do you even start to write a research paper? Don’t worry, we’ve got you covered.

For starters, it’s important to get clear instructions from your professor on what they want. The next step is to start brainstorming ideas for a topic of research. Once you’ve decided and feel confident about it, you’re ready to create your outline and plan out the goal of your research paper.

Befriend your librarian and start to search for quality and credible sources through a variety of means. Make sure you understand your topic from top to bottom before you start writing.  As you write, be sure to always keep things factual, and that you finalize your thesis statement throughout your paper — not just at the end. That’s what’s going to guide your writing. Be sure to always keep format in mind, never forget to cite your sources, and to never skip those edits and final checks.

Now you are ready to write a high-quality, fact-driven research paper that’s sure to impress your professors.

In this article

At UoPeople, our blog writers are thinkers, researchers, and experts dedicated to curating articles relevant to our mission: making higher education accessible to everyone.

• Directories
• What is UW Libraries Search and how do I use it to find resources?
• Does the library have my textbook?
• Who can access databases, e-journals, e-books etc. and from where?
• How do I find full-text scholarly articles in my subject?
• How do I find e-books?
• How do I cite a source using a specific style?
• How do I find an article by citation?
• How do I renew books and other loans?
• Do I have access to this journal?
• How do I request a book/article we don't have?
• How do I request materials using Interlibrary Loan?
• What does the “Request Article” button mean?
• How do I connect Google Scholar with UW Libraries?
• How do I pay fines?
• How do I access resources from off-campus?
• How do I know if my sources are credible/reliable?
• How do I know if my articles are scholarly (peer-reviewed)?
• What is Summit?
• Start Your Research
• Research Guides
• University of Washington Libraries
• Library Guides
• UW Libraries

FAQ: How do I know if my sources are credible/reliable?

UW Libraries has a whole guide, Savvy Info Consumers: Evaluating Information , which discusses different types of sources and how to approach evaluating their credibility/reliability.

What it means for a source to be credible/reliable can vary depending on the context of its use. Generally, a credible or reliable source is one that experts in your subject domain would agree is valid for your purposes. This can vary, so it is best to use one of the source evaluation methods that best fits your needs. Do remember that credibility is contextual!

It is important to critically evaluate sources because using credible/reliable sources makes you a more informed writer. Think about unreliable sources as pollutants to your credibility, if you include unreliable sources in your work, your work could lose credibility as a result.

There are certain frameworks that information professionals have put together to help people think critically about the information provided. 

Some of the methods that UW Libraries suggest are: 

5 W Questions (5Ws) : This method means thinking critically about each of your sources by answering five questions to determine if the source is credible/reliable. The acceptable answers to these questions will vary depending on your needs. The questions are:

• Who is the author? (Authority)
• What is the purpose of the content? (Accuracy)
• Where is the content from? (Publisher)
• Why does the source exist? (Purpose and Objectivity)
• How does this source compare to others? (Determining What’s What)

SMART Check : This method is particularly good at evaluating newspaper sources. Like the 5Ws method it also involves answering critical questions about your source. The criteria are:

• Source: Who or what is the source?
• Motive: Why do they say what they do?
• Authority: Who wrote the story?
• Review: Is there anything included that jumps out as potentially untrue?
• Two-Source Test: How does it compare to another source?

CRAAP Test : This method provides you with a set of criteria that make a source more or less credible. The criteria are:

• Currency: Timeliness of the information
• Relevance: Importance of the information for your needs
• Authority: Source of the information
• Accuracy: Truthfulness and correctness of the information
• Purpose: Reason the information exists

Additional Help

If you would like personalized support from UW Libraries on source evaluation you can

• Make an appointment with a librarian at the Odegaard Writing and Research Center
• Ask Us! Chat with a librarian live or email your question
• << Previous: How do I access resources from off-campus?
• Next: How do I know if my articles are scholarly (peer-reviewed)? >>
• Last Updated: Jan 8, 2024 1:15 PM
• URL: https://guides.lib.uw.edu/research/faq

• How it works

What are Credible Sources – Tips to Identify Them With Examples

Published by Alvin Nicolas at October 12th, 2023 , Revised On October 12, 2023

In today’s information age, distinguishing between credible and unreliable sources is paramount. Whether you’re a student working on a research paper, a journalist crafting a news article, or simply a curious individual seeking reliable information, identifying credible sources is a critical skill.

In this comprehensive guide, we will explore what credible sources are? What makes a source credible, the types of credible sources available, where to find them, and how to evaluate web sources? Additionally, we will discuss concepts such as peer review, academic dishonesty, and differentiating between primary and secondary sources.

What is a Credible Source?

A credible source can be trusted to provide accurate, reliable, and unbiased information. Credible sources are essential for various purposes, including academic research , journalism, decision-making, and gaining knowledge on various topics . Credibility hinges on factors such as the source’s reputation, expertise, transparency, and the rigour of its research methods.

What Makes a Source Credible?

To determine the credibility of a source, consider the following criteria:

Author’s Qualifications 

Check the author’s credentials and expertise in the field. Are they qualified to speak on the subject?

Publication Source 

Examine where the information is published. Reputable sources include peer-reviewed journals, established news outlets, government websites, and academic institutions.

Citations and References 

A credible source will provide citations and references to support its claims, allowing you to verify the information independently.

Objectivity and Bias 

Evaluate whether the source exhibits bias or maintains objectivity. Credible sources strive to present balanced viewpoints.

Accuracy and Timeliness 

Ensure that the information is up-to-date and accurate. Outdated or inaccurate information can lead to misinformed decisions.

Now that we understand the characteristics of credible sources let’s explore the different types of sources that meet these criteria.

Types of Credible Sources

Credible sources come in various forms, each serving a unique research and information-gathering purpose. Here are some common types:

Academic Journals 

These are scholarly publications that undergo rigorous peer review. They are excellent sources for academic research .

Authored books, especially those published by reputable publishers, provide in-depth knowledge on specific subjects.

Government Publications 

Government websites and reports offer official information and statistics, often highly reliable.

News Outlets 

Established and respected news organisations are valuable current events and general knowledge sources.

Educational Institutions 

Websites of universities and educational institutions often host credible research papers, articles, and resources.

Experts and Interviews 

Interviews with subject experts or specialists can be credible sources if the interviewee has expertise in the field.

Now that we know where to find credible sources let’s explore strategies for locating them effectively.

Where to Find Credible Sources

Finding credible sources can be daunting, especially with the vast amount of online information. Here are some strategies to help you locate them:

Library Databases 

University and public libraries provide access to a wealth of academic databases and journals.

Online Libraries 

Websites like Google Scholar , JSTOR , and Project MUSE index a vast array of scholarly articles.

Government Websites 

Government agencies often publish reports, statistics, and official information online.

Explore the websites of universities and colleges for academic resources and research papers .

Reputable News Outlets 

Trustworthy news sources like BBC, The New York Times, and Reuters offer reliable information on current events.

Reference Books 

Encyclopedias and reference books provide foundational knowledge on various topics.

With these strategies in mind, you can navigate the information landscape more effectively. However, evaluating their credibility is crucial even when you find potential sources.

Evaluating Web Sources

The internet is a treasure trove of information but is also rife with misinformation and unreliable sources. When evaluating web sources, consider the following tips:

Check the Domain

Examine the website’s domain. Government, educational, and non-profit organisations typically have more reliable information.

Authorship 

Look for information about the author or organisation responsible for the content. Lack of authorship or transparency is a red flag.

Publication Date 

Ensure that the information is current. Some topics require the latest data and research.

Cross-Check Information 

Verify facts and claims by comparing information from multiple credible sources.

Bias and Objectivity 

Assess whether the source displays bias or maintains objectivity. Be cautious of sensationalism and extreme viewpoints.

Determine if the source provides citations and references to support its claims.

Site Design 

While not foolproof, professional and well-maintained websites often indicate credibility.

Applying these principles allows you to sift through web sources more effectively and identify the reliable ones.

The research done by our experts have:

• Precision and Clarity
• Zero Plagiarism
• Authentic Sources

Examples of Credible Vs. Non-Credible Sources

Let’s put the knowledge gained into practice by examining examples of credible and non-credible sources on a specific topic:

Topic: Climate Change

Credible Source

• An article on climate change was published in the peer-reviewed journal “Environmental Science & Technology.”
• The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report is available on its official website.
• A book on climate science authored by a climatologist and published by a reputable academic press.

Non-Credible Source

• A blog post on a personal website claiming that climate change is a hoax.
• A social media post with no sources or citations that argues against the consensus on climate change.
• An article on a news aggregation website with no byline or references to credible scientific studies. 

Ensuring Credibility and Integrity in Academia: Peer Review and Academic Honesty

The importance of peer review, definition of peer review.

Peer review is a crucial process in academic publishing. It involves experts in a particular field critically evaluating research articles before they are published in academic journals. 

Here’s how peer review works:

Submission 

An author submits their research article to a peer-reviewed journal.

Expert Evaluation 

The journal’s editor sends the article to experts (peers) in the same field for review.

Feedback and Revision 

Peers assess the article’s quality, methodology, and validity. They may suggest revisions or reject the article if it doesn’t meet scholarly standards.

Publication 

If accepted, the article is published, indicating that it has passed the scrutiny of experts in the field.

Peer review ensures that published research is of high quality and credibility. When conducting academic research, prioritise peer-reviewed sources to bolster the reliability of your work.

Academic Dishonesty: What You Should Know

Academic dishonesty refers to unethical behaviour in academia , which includes plagiarism, cheating, and the fabrication of data. It undermines the credibility of the individuals involved and the institutions they represent. To maintain your credibility and uphold academic integrity, familiarise yourself with your institution’s academic honesty policies and always attribute sources properly in your work.

Differentiating Primary and Secondary Sources

In research, it’s essential to differentiate between primary and secondary sources :

Primary Sources

These are original, first-hand documents or materials created during the event or research. Examples include diaries, letters, photographs, and scientific studies.

Secondary Sources 

Secondary sources provide analysis, interpretation, or commentary on primary sources. Examples include books, reviews, and articles that discuss or summarise research.

Understanding the distinction between primary and secondary sources helps you assess the depth and perspective of the information you encounter during your research.

Subsequently, in today’s information-driven society, finding reputable sources is a vital aptitude. You may confidently navigate the information sea by understanding what makes a source reputable, knowing where to find it, and refining your evaluation abilities.

Recognising the value of peer review, avoiding academic dishonesty, and distinguishing between primary and secondary sources all help you get accurate information and contribute to the body of knowledge. So, use the above tips and approaches to become a more discerning consumer and provider of credible data.

Frequently Asked Questions

What are credible sources, and why are they important.

Credible sources are trustworthy and reliable providers of information. They are important because they ensure the accuracy of your research and help you make informed decisions.

How can I determine if a source is credible?

You can assess source credibility by checking the author’s qualifications, the publication outlet, citations and references, objectivity, accuracy, and publication date.

Where can I find credible sources for academic research?

Reliable academic sources are often found in academic journals, books, government publications, university websites, and libraries.

What is peer review, and why is it crucial for credibility?

Peer review is a process where experts evaluate research before publication. It’s critical because it ensures high-quality and verified information.

How do I avoid academic dishonesty when citing sources?

Avoid academic dishonesty by properly citing sources using citation styles like APA, MLA, or Chicago, and always giving credit to the original authors to maintain integrity in your work.

You May Also Like

A secondary source refers to any material that interprets, analyses, or reviews information originally presented elsewhere. Unlike primary sources, which offer direct evidence or first-hand testimony, secondary sources work on those original materials, offering commentary, critiques, and perspectives.

In academic writing and research, integrating sources plays a pivotal role in shaping the quality and credibility of your work.

USEFUL LINKS

LEARNING RESOURCES

COMPANY DETAILS

• How It Works

Guide to Research for the Wind Conducting Studio

Evaluating sources for credibility: which ones are right for your research.

Not all sources are created equal - especially when it comes to advanced research.  Finding the right sources for your specific topic is crucial for writing a scholarly, trustworthy dissertation, term paper, or even a program note. Here are some ideas for questions to ask yourself as you're evaluating the sources you find and deciding whether or not to use them for your research:

How did I find it - Google? The Libraries catalog? A Libraries database? Remember: Just because I found something through google, that doesn’t mean it’s automatically credible or not credible - I just need to evaluate it!

Can I or can’t I trust the info I find in this source? What do I know about the author/publisher? Do I trust their authority on this topic?

Is it peer reviewed? If not, that’s okay! Even if it’s not peer reviewed, is it credible?

• What kind of useful keywords or ideas can I draw from it to inform additional searches for resources?

Remember: Evaluating sources early in the process can help to ensure that you're working with the best and most trustworthy information!

• Tutorial: What does it mean to be a scholarly source?

• Recognize a scholarly (versus a popular) source
• Understand how a scholarly source differs from other types of sources

A quick overview of peer review: How do you know which sources to trust?

The most scholarly sources are those that are peer reviewed . This means that the source (like a book or a journal article – the concept of peer review doesn’t apply to recordings) has gone through a process of being reviewed by experts on the topic prior to its publication, and those experts provided comments to help the author improve the source. Ultimately, the experts gave the source their stamp of approval, so you know it’s trustworthy.

Several of the Libraries databases linked from this guide (like RILM, Music Index, and Music Periodicals Database) provide options in their Advanced Search screens to limit to “Scholarly” or “Peer-Reviewed” sources.

Remember: Not all sources are peer reviewed. For example, newspaper articles are only reviewed by the editor of the paper, and podcasts aren’t vetted by a panel of experts before they’re released. But just because a source isn’t peer reviewed, that doesn’t mean it’s bad! Just make sure you get a sense of the author’s credibility/authority before trusting the information it provides. Can you find the author’s bio? Do they cite other trustworthy sources in their bibliography? These factors may help to indicate whether the source is credible.

• Tutorial: How scholarly research gets published in peer-reviewed journals and where to find it all

• Recognize how scholarly research articles come to be published in peer-reviewed journals
• Use a library database to access it all
• << Previous: Avoiding plagiarism and citing your sources is key
• Next: Get some background info from trustworthy music encyclopedias >>

Choosing & Using Sources: A Guide to Academic Research

(48 reviews)

Cheryl Lowry, Ohio State University

Copyright Year: 2016

Publisher: Ohio State University Libraries

Language: English

Formats Available

Conditions of use.

Learn more about reviews.

Reviewed by Elbert Davis, Assistant Professor, Marshall University on 10/24/21

The author does an incredible job in explaining the research process, from choosing a research question to how to search for sources (and citing those sources), and more. There are relevant self-check quizzes throughout the book to check for... read more

Comprehensiveness rating: 5 see less

The author does an incredible job in explaining the research process, from choosing a research question to how to search for sources (and citing those sources), and more. There are relevant self-check quizzes throughout the book to check for understanding, along with other supplemental resources. As the book was published through The Ohio State University, some of the sources are only available to OSU students, but the author makes it clear when this is the case.

Content Accuracy rating: 5

The author did an excellent job with the accuracy of the book, Two specific examples that stood out: taking care to mention that Wikipedia is a great as a starting point, but not as an endpoint for research. Lowry also clearly explained that educational use did not automatically mean fair use, which seems to be an issue with students and faculty alike.

Relevance/Longevity rating: 5

The book should remain relevant in years to come, as academic research seems to follow the same basic pattern. The only issue would be if The Ohio State University changes the links used in the book, although I expect these to be easy to update. The book would still be able to be used without the supplemental links though.

Clarity rating: 5

The book seems to be targeting an introductory audience. Lowry does a great job of breaking down the jargon of academic research into plain English for the beginning researcher.

Consistency rating: 5

I thought the author used approprate terminology for a student learning about academic research.

Modularity rating: 5

The book is designed into specific chapters for the different aspects of choosing a source. While there are specific sections devoted to The Ohio State University library, I would not expect to have any trouble assigning the other chapters in my courses.

Organization/Structure/Flow rating: 5

The author started at the beginning, with how to design a research question before going into choosing a source, which gave good background knowledge.

Interface rating: 5

The contents of the book were clean and crisp. No distortions were noted. Navigation from the table of contents was easy.

Grammatical Errors rating: 5

No grammatical errors were noted.

Cultural Relevance rating: 5

Nothing offensive was in the book.

I have a difficult time in getting beginning graduate student to understand the different types of sources and fair use. I think using most chapters of this book would help a great deal in that comprehension.

Reviewed by Kelly LeFave, Instructor, Portland Community College on 6/15/21

This student friendly overview of academic research, including a strong focus on information literacy, covers many of the salient points that college level writing and writing for research classes curricula contain, making it a strong choice as a... read more

Comprehensiveness rating: 4 see less

This student friendly overview of academic research, including a strong focus on information literacy, covers many of the salient points that college level writing and writing for research classes curricula contain, making it a strong choice as a comprehensive and useful overview. Chapters include enough depth of coverage to make the leap from information to practice for students; self-directed activities are provided to check knowledge, work through concept applications, and offer more specifics. The book provides an easy-to-navigate Table of Contents, but an Index and Glossary do not seem to be available.

Content Accuracy rating: 4

Some errors appear that a thorough proofread would catch. Some resources may need to be updated since information practices and modes change so quickly; some references and links direct students to OSU information that would not apply to all readers.

Relevance/Longevity rating: 4

The book’s topic – academic research – necessarily demands constant updating given our fast-changing digital landscape and the shifting paradigms we are witnessing for locating and evaluating information in our times. Resources can become obsolete fairly quickly in this environment. The book’s content is largely up-to-date, though a thorough review of linked resources, perhaps annually, would be beneficial. For instance, a video on RSS mentioned a Google feature that looks to be no longer available, though finding alternatives proves simple when searched online. The book’s organization makes updating or replacing linked resources easy, so keeping the content relevant would be straightforward with regular review.

Content is presented in a style engaging for students, using the “you” pronoun address to walk readers through a thinking process that applies and links ideas to practice; this effective approach is used for many of the book’s concepts. The writing strikes a good stylistic balance between engaging the student reader and informing/challenging that same reader by modeling research brainstorming or methods. The style seems appropriate for college level readers and college level curricula. The topic of academic research does include some technical terms at times, but the book’s approach is to define and explain such terms a part of its content.

Stylistically and organizationally, the content is consistent and easy-to-follow. A user begins to anticipate knowledge check activities or “try it out” activities at particular points in each section. The knowledge check quizzes, which are simplified multiple choice questions, seem at odds with the highly contextualized concept explanations in much of the book’s prose; perhaps a different approach to knowledge check quizzing, which as an element can be helpful, would work better.

Modularity rating: 4

Headings and subheadings follow a logical organization and are easy to navigate in the book. Some sections do refer to—and link to—other book sections, but most would work as stand-alone modules. An instructor or course designer could pick and choose sections and adapt them for their own purposes. As a whole, the book remains self-referential to the context of a specific university, which limits the easy adaptation of the book, and perhaps even sections, for faculty and course designers at other educational institutions.

The book’s organization is easy to navigate and coheres with the overall focus on presenting academic research and information literacy in a way that invites students toward a practical and fuller understanding. Topic order makes sense and is organized via headings and subheadings well.

Overall, no significant navigation issues or interface distractions.

A few errors that look like typos remain in the book. Otherwise, grammatical errors are not an issue for readability.

Cultural Relevance rating: 4

A more nuanced and inclusive awareness of cultural relevance and diversity is worth considering for the book. The choice of some example topics, such as school shootings, might be distracting or traumatic for some student populations, while adding more examples that showcase interests or topics related to non-dominant cultural ideas would widen the sense of inclusivity throughout the book. Choices might be contingent on the demographics of the Ohio State University population, but more awareness of this aspect of the book might also make it more appealing as a resource for others to adapt

Reviewed by Nell McCabe, Associate Professor, Berkshire Community College on 6/15/21

This text is very-student friendly and covers all aspects of writing a student research paper, including steps that students frequently overlook such as the value of preliminary research and the different ways to incorporate different kinds of... read more

This text is very-student friendly and covers all aspects of writing a student research paper, including steps that students frequently overlook such as the value of preliminary research and the different ways to incorporate different kinds of information in a paper.

This text provides a well-balanced, research-driven approach to guiding students through the process of writing an academic research paper. Spelling mistakes, flaw grammar and usage, and factual errors are few and far between (as in I didn't find any during the course of this review).

Kinds of sources and the means of evaluating them are broad enough to be long-lasting, but the examples and other supporting details are timely and relevant.

This text uses student-friendly language and avoids jargon and other symptoms of academia run amok, while still maintaining high standards and expectations for students. Connections between the different stages of conducting research and developing an argument are well laid out and clear.

Terms associated with locating, evaluating, and incorporating a range of different kinds of sources are clear and consistent throughout the text.

The chapters do stand alone and I could image someone using bits and pieces or leaving out bits and pieces, but since the text is primarily focused on supporting the needs of a college research throughout the research process, it is hard to image much need for separating it into discrete modules. You could certainly rearrange the order of the chapters too if that worked better for your approach to teaching student research.

The flow of one chapter into the next is well-integrated and smooth. The order of the chapters

I had no issues with the interface; everything worked as expected.

Cultural Relevance rating: 3

The book does not go out of its way to make obviously inclusive examples. Increasing the cultural perspectives represented in the examples would enhance the overall value of this text.

Reviewed by Darci Adolf, Director of Library & Media Services, Oregon Coast Community College on 6/11/21

I found "Choosing and Using Sources" to be quite comprehensive and included the major areas that I cover in my LIB 101 Research skills class. In my class I like to cover each area of Eisenberg's Big6 Research model: Task definition, information... read more

I found "Choosing and Using Sources" to be quite comprehensive and included the major areas that I cover in my LIB 101 Research skills class. In my class I like to cover each area of Eisenberg's Big6 Research model: Task definition, information seeking strategies, location and access, use of information, synthesis, and evaluation. I was pleased to find the subject of synthesis covered under the writing chapter-- many research textbooks leave this out. I did not find anything that talked about Evaluation of the process and product. Also, I would've liked to have seen social justice and equity issues in information publishing and access addressed as a chapter or portion of a chapter. The textbook has a great Table of Contents, but no index.

This textbook seems to contain accurate and error-free content. I spot-checked most of the chapters and didn't find anything I didn't believe to be true, and links weren't broken. Because this book is mostly factual in nature, there aren't areas where an author's opinion was used over facts, and opinions seem to be be appropriate and unbiased. For example, the author remarks on the use of blogs in research: "Blogs – Frequently updated websites that do not necessarily require extensive technical skills and can be published by virtually anyone for no cost to themselves other than the time they devote to content creation." This is a wide-held belief among librarians.

The content appeared to be up-to-date throughout the book. The area that might change the quickest is the types of sources, Chapter 2 in the book. They did a good job including an overview of all of the major source types and should stay relevant for a good period of time. Because they've listed these source types in a single chapter, updates to the text should be fairly straight forward and easy to do without disturbing much of the rest of the book.

Clarity rating: 4

The text was clear to me, a seasoned librarian. But I think there were terms used throughout the textbook that might not be familiar to a student first starting out in library research. So I would add some clarification around some of the language if I were using this textbook for a lower-level class. For example: There are several types of specialized databases listed including: Bibliographic, Full-text, Multimedia, etc. Many first year students wouldn't know those terms, or others such as "circulation, World-cat, discharge, InterLibrary Loan" and so forth.

The text was consistent throughout in terms of terminology and the overall frame. As I mentioned previously, some of the terms might need to be defined for the first-year student, either in-text or in a separate glossary. The framework is well-done, with clear chapters and sections--it was definitely written by those who teach research at the college level.

The textbook has 13 chapters that are again sub-divided into six or more sub-topics. This makes it very easy for an instructor to pick and choose which topics to cover. The thirteen broader subjects makes it easy to use the entire textbook for a term-- or just choose the pieces you want to use. For example, I would use the "Ethical Use and Citing Sources" chapter if I were doing a one-shot in a classroom, but might choose to use most of the chapters for an online class.

The structure was easy to follow. If I were setting it up myself, I'd probably combine the chapters on Ethical Use of Sources (Ethical Use and Citing Sources, Why Cite Sources, and Challenges in Citing Sources) with the chapter on "How to Cite Sources," but it's easier to have them separate and combine them for a class than to have a big block of text that would make it difficult to work through.

The textbook online version was done in Wordpress, and was easy to view and navigate. There were several other choices for students, including a PDF that could be viewed off line. There were charts, graphs, and links throughout that added to the content, but not so much as to be distracting. Any visuals were simple and enough white space was left as to not overwhelm, with colors that were contrasting visually.

I spot-checked throughout the text in each chapter and did not find any grammatical errors.

The textbook seemed to be inclusive of all races, ethnicities, and backgrounds.

Ohio State University has included a lot of links to their own pages, handouts, and resources that would need to be changed or omitted by a new user. For example, they have a handout from the OSU Writing Center, and they link to the OSU World Cat platform. These would need to be changed by the adopter.

Reviewed by Kaia Henrickson, Assistant Professor of Library & Information Science, Information Literacy Librarian, University of Alaska, Southeast on 11/4/20, updated 12/16/20

This text does a good job highlighting the steps in the research process, from formulating a strong research question, to finding and evaluating sources, to incorporating ideas from research into writing, and finally, to citing and using sources... read more

This text does a good job highlighting the steps in the research process, from formulating a strong research question, to finding and evaluating sources, to incorporating ideas from research into writing, and finally, to citing and using sources properly. Each chapter can stand on its own as useful content for a research-based course, or the entire text could be used to walk students through the entire research and writing process. Based on tutorials created for Ohio State University Libraries, some sections, like Chapter 5 on search tools as well as some of the activities, are fairly specific to OSU. Still, much of the text and many of the activities are applicable to all student researchers. This would be a great base text for someone who wanted to remix and add in information from their own university library and student service supports to replace the OSU-focused sections.

The material is accurate overall.

Text content, as well as videos and activities, are fairly current. Sections are small, so making updates should be fairly easy.

While the text is generally clear, there are sections that are a bit cumbersome or wordy. The Evaluating Sources section, especially, seems overly complicated.

References and links to other helpful sections within the text are appropriate and useful. Key concepts and ideas are repeated and built upon as the text progresses.

Each chapter is divided into manageable sections, and there are few sections which require a lot of scrolling. Those that are longer are broken up by subheadings. Embedded video content, visuals, and boxes are used to break up the text for easier reading and more visual appeal.

The text clearly progresses through the steps in the research and writing process from start to finish, but it can also be accessed by section if a particular subtopic is all that is needed. Each chapter stands on its own, as well as being integrated into the whole.

Interface rating: 3

The web version of the text has no paragraph indents or lines of space between paragraphs, which makes it a bit difficult to read, especially when there are longer blocks of text. There are many videos included that only have automatically-created closed captions (and a few with no closed captions available at all). A few of the graphics are blurry, but most visual and audiovisual content is clear and easy to read. With some of the linked activities, it is unclear what to do when you have selected an incorrect answer, and there is not much feedback for students who answer questions incorrectly.

Grammatical Errors rating: 4

There are a few typos and other minor issues here and there in the text. Some of the linked activities have more significant errors.

The text is not culturally insensitive, but it also doesn't present much in the way of diversity in examples or ideas. In addition, there is a noticeable amount content that is focused on Ohio State University resources and students, and this may not be relevant for readers from other universities.

Reviewed by Marybeth Beller, Associate Professor, Marshall University on 3/13/20

The book provides a thorough review of the research process; that said, a professor will have to add discipline-specific information and requirements, such as expected citation practices and research methods. read more

The book provides a thorough review of the research process; that said, a professor will have to add discipline-specific information and requirements, such as expected citation practices and research methods.

I found no errors in the text.

I will use this book for my undergraduate research course as it gives a very good introduction to research, from narrowing the topic to turning questions into hypotheses.

The book is very clear and provides graphs, links and videos for the reader to have additional information as needed.

Each chapter is organized similarly to the others and is written in the same easy-to-follow, technical-free language. It removes any inhibitions a reader might have.

Each chapter section has its own heading and link. The entire book could be assigned or sections of the book could be just as easily assigned. A drop-down table of contents menu allows the reader to move freely between topics.

This guide is beautifully organized for the beginning researcher but can easily be followed through the table of contents for students needed refreshers on particular elements of research.

I found no interface issues at all in navigating the book.

There were no grammatical errors in the text.

I believe the book would be welcomed by a diverse group of people. There is no insensitive language or use of poor examples in the book.

I really enjoyed the organization of the book and that the author takes the time to include links to additional information as well as videos for students who want to spend more time with a particular concept.

Reviewed by Racheal Rothrock, Assistant Professor, Miami University on 2/28/20

The text is comprehensive in its covering of topics related to choosing and using sources, though it does not go into great depth for each topic. Rather this text provides a broad overview around the topic of sources. This text seems to be written... read more

The text is comprehensive in its covering of topics related to choosing and using sources, though it does not go into great depth for each topic. Rather this text provides a broad overview around the topic of sources. This text seems to be written for an upper-level, undergraduate student audience. No glossary is provided.

This information is presented in an unbiased way that informs on the topic rather than presenting a strong bias or slant toward a particular type of source (though, there is cultural bias—see review comments in “cultural” section). The text does provide details on what approaches might be more helpful in certain situations. This provides a balance of usefulness for students trying to determine which sources to use, while also not assigning value to some sources over others or create a hierarchy.

Relevance/Longevity rating: 3

The text demonstrates a current understanding around the topic of sources, taking into account the shift away from paper and toward digital sources. While overall this text should be useful for several years, there are some areas that may require updating (e.g. links, OSU policies or statements, specifics about various citation styles, software options available, copyright laws, etc.). Throughout the text, the authors do depend on examples that are specific to OSU (e.g. a section on “WorldCat@OSU”), and this might provide less useful for non-OSU students.

The text is written with simple language and explanations are given for more technical terminology (e.g. peer-reviewed, quantitative, qualitative, etc.).

Little specialized terminology is used throughout the text, however, the language and terminology used is consistent throughout. The format, structure, and approach the authors use, is also consistent throughout the text and forms a cohesive narrative.

The text is broken up by main topics and then within each topic, subtopics are provided to support the main topic. The length of each subtopic is fairly brief and examples are provided throughout with graphical separation for clarity. While the topics and subtopics support each other, each subtopic could be assigned individually and would maintain usefulness.

Organization/Structure/Flow rating: 4

Overall, the organization is logical and clear. There are a few topics that might be shifted in their order, but this is not a critical need. For instance, moving the information about copyright closer to the section on ethical use of sources might make sense, but does not overly disrupt the general flow of the text.

There are no significant issues. A fixed bar at the bottom of the screen allows for navigation to pages directly preceding and proceeding the current page and a clickable contents button at the top right side of the page allows further navigation between sections. Overall, visuals do not appear to be distorted, however, many of the visuals are quite large, taking up the majority of the screen, and could be reduced in size without losing effectiveness. Additionally, on pages 9 and 11, a graphic is presented that contains text that is too small to read. While it is not necessary to read the text in the visual in order to understand the lesson of the section, because it is provided, it would be reasonable to make this large enough to be legible.

The text seems to be free of any major grammatical errors.

This text is written from an academic, western cultural perspective that is relevant to the particular topic and audience (i.e. “A guide to academic research”), but does not take into other ontological or epistemological scholarly perspectives (e.g. testimonios or oral histories as significant sources). The visuals and examples do privilege the U.S. and mainstream cultures, such as through a photo of a White woman using her Mac computer in a library, a photo of a football team, an illustration with the U.S. flag in it, an example question of “How has NASA helped America,” an example opinion of “George Clooney is the sexiest actor alive,” etc. The text is not overtly insensitive or offensive, but it also does not appear to take up or address non-dominant perspectives and cultures in any substantive way.

Reviewed by Audrey Besch, Temporary Faculty , East Tennessee State University on 10/31/19

This text is very comprehensive! From choosing sources to the final research project, this book does a wonderful job of providing all the steps. read more

This text is very comprehensive! From choosing sources to the final research project, this book does a wonderful job of providing all the steps.

Information is accurate for the purposes of writing research and using sources.

Up-to-date and relevant, this text does a good job of outlining various types of sources that can be used and the appropriate ways in which to use them.

Very easy to read content that would be great for students, especially those who are just starting the academic writing process for research.

The text remained consistent in it's use of terminology and framework.

Text has an appropriate use of subheadings and includes activity sections that focus on concepts. Material was broken into easy to grasp ways that didn't seem too lengthy.

Content is well organized and in a logical format for the content provided.

Book did not have any navigation issues and all images were appropriately used for content.

To the extent of my knowledge, there were no grammatical errors in this text.

There were no culturally insensitive issues or offensive language in this text that I could find.

Reviewed by Kris Frykman, Community Faculty, Minnesota State University System on 10/18/19

Comprehensive overview, with examples, to punctuate learning. read more

Comprehensive overview, with examples, to punctuate learning.

Clear, accurate process in showcasing academic research.

Appropriate book for researchers of all levels.

Chapter follow-up questions and videos are included to further enhance clarity.

Terminology and examples are included to further make the content accessible for the reader.

The book is divided in sections so that students can study and apply one concept at a time.

Content is clearly organized.

Charts, diagrams, examples, and videos are highlighted to exemplify key contents.

No discernable grammatical errors.

Appropriately culturally sensitive.

Reviewed by TyRee Jenks, Research Librarian & Library Instruction Coordinator, Montana State University - Billings on 7/31/19

The text is very comprehensive and covers all the necessary aspects of information literacy and student research. There is no index or glossary included, but terms are well explained within the text. The extensive coverage of topics, like types... read more

The text is very comprehensive and covers all the necessary aspects of information literacy and student research. There is no index or glossary included, but terms are well explained within the text. The extensive coverage of topics, like types of sources and copyright, was thorough while not being so in-depth as to bore students. The activities, quizzes, and short videos reinforce the concepts covered in the chapters and add interest, however some quizzes would benefit from additional explanation as to why answers are right or wrong.

The content of the text seems to be accurate. Very minor spelling errors and a copy/paste duplicate. No apparent bias.

Content is up to date and relevant for students while being broad enough to be useful for a longer period of time. Updating information would be easy. The text contains a lot of hyperlinks that an instructor would need to stay on top of to keep the links current. In some cases the links were to very reliable sources that will remain stable for a long time (i.e. Purdue OWL) while others are more transient (i.e. YouTube videos).

In general the text is clear, including good explanations of terms and concepts. It contains very little jargon and the prose is accessible. In “The Details Are Tricky” section, the finer points of primary, secondary, or tertiary information could be confusing to students who are trying to comprehend the basics. The author’s inclusion of informative tables with sample responses as well as the blank template for students to use was helpful.

There is consistent use of terminology and layout throughout the text.

The book has good modularity, excellent graphics, and the text and/or activities can easily be used at the point of need in an information literacy class or one that is discipline specific. Chapters can be used individually or rearranged as needed.

Overall the organizational flow worked well, however the chapters on copyright and fair use might make more sense when grouped with the chapters on the ethical use of sources and how to cite sources.

The EPUB and web versions of the text are easy to navigate with a clickable table of contents and left/right arrow navigation at the bottom of each page. Other than some images that could be resized, the formatting lent itself to consistency throughout the text giving students a uniform experience. In some cases the URL links were just written text instead of hyperlinked which was a little inconsistent. Pleasant graphics added value, explained concepts, balanced out the text, and added visual interest. The inclusion of links that lead out to further explanations of concepts (i.e. the peer review process or how to read a scholarly article) are a nice addition.

There are no major grammatical errors that would be distracting to the reader.

The text is applicable to students in all disciplines, and there are no concerns about cultural relevance or insensitivity. The text is heavily OSU centric (i.e. referencing the OSU code of conduct and requiring students to log in to OSU resources for some activities and examples) and requires effort on the part of instructors at other institutions to make the necessary changes making the content applicable at their institution.

With modifications this text could be incorporated into a three credit information literacy course for undergraduates or into other disciplines. The fair use and copyright sections could be useful to instructors as well as students. Could easily integrate with the ACRL Framework. There is some great general information on writing and making an argument that are applicable across disciplines.

Reviewed by Eric Bradley, Research and Instruction Librarian, Goshen College on 5/31/19

The focus of the book is on published sources for college level research and writing. In this area it is comprehensive. It does not address other areas of academic research. read more

The focus of the book is on published sources for college level research and writing. In this area it is comprehensive. It does not address other areas of academic research.

The content is accurate, error-free, and politically neutral. The last piece makes this a excellent source in the current United States political climate.

Content reflects the current realities of the information landscape. Several of the chapters use up-to-date wording that may need to be updated more frequently, but the excellent modularity of the text allows for accommodation.

The book is straight forward and uses contemporary language of the information and academic landscapes.

The text follows a consistent framework throughout the book.

The text is divided in a way to teach across a course. While the text builds upon itself, many of the chapters stand alone well. I have skipped several chapters of the text and it has not caused any disruption with students.

Excellent organization. The text guides the reader step by step through the research process.

Interface rating: 4

The overall interface is strong. The images and charts are excellent, although the use of branded logos in some of the images may become dated.

No grammatical errors noted.

The text is focused on academic research practices for a North American context. While not culturally insensitive or offensive in any way, it does not take into consideration research practices of other cultures.

I use this text as a replacement of Booth et al.’s Craft of Research. Beside the benefits of being a open textbook, this text provides a more relevant guide to finding sources in the current academic environment.

Reviewed by Kathleen Murphy, Coordinator and Assistant Professor of Music Thearpy, Loyola University-New Orleans on 4/30/19

This book includes all relevant information to help students choose appropriate sources for an academic research paper. It clearly defines different types of sources that can be used, and the difference between primary and secondary sources. It... read more

This book includes all relevant information to help students choose appropriate sources for an academic research paper. It clearly defines different types of sources that can be used, and the difference between primary and secondary sources. It gives an overview of how to search various databases, and defines and describes boolean operators. The chapter on ethical uses of sources clearly defines plagiarism and how and when to cite so as to avoid plagiarizing. The chapter on copyright is an excellent addition; that information is not common in many texts related to academic writing. Each chapter contains extra activities students can work on independently to help with understanding and application of the material covered.

Overall, I found the book to be accurate. I did find one error in Chapter 7. In the section titled "Challenges in Citing Sources" the entry labeled "Running out of Time" was repeated. In regards to bias--I did not find the content to be biased; however, the majority of links where students could go to get extra information were connected to Ohio State University. The one notable exception were the links to the Perdue Online Writing Lab.

The content is up-to-date and relevant. Choosing and using sources for an academic paper has not changed much. What has changed is how to access and find the sources to choose and use. This book does a nice job of explaining how to find sources--databases, google scholar, and search engines. My only concern is the frequent suggestion to search Wikipedia. As an academic, I find this a little troubling. To the author's credit, they did not that one should not cite Wikipedia or use information from Wikipedia in an academic paper. I am not able to comment on ease of updating information, as that is a technical issue.

The book is written in clear, accessible language, with limited "jargon." At times I found the writing to be too simple, written more for high school students than college students. Definitions are provided for all relevant terms.

The book is internally consistent. It moves through the process of choosing and using sources in a linear fashion. However, to their credit, the authors note that writing an academic research paper is not always a linear process.

Each chapter is broken up into smaller units that cover a topic relevant to the chapter theme. Sections of this book could be assigned as individual assignments based on areas of difficultly students seem to be having. Alternatively, a professor could develop a class session or two around each of the chapters. These book seems to be very versatile; there are links to previous chapters that readers can click on to refresh their memories.

The topics in the text are presented in a logical and clear way. The book moves through each topic associated with choosing and using sources in sequence that most researchers would follow. The table of contents, with main headings and subtopics provide a step-by-step guide to help undergraduate students through the research process.

There are many links in throughout the book that students can click on to get more information or to practice skills. Navigation back to the main text is a little trickier. Sometimes, clicking on the back arrow will get the reader back to the page s/he was studying before clicking on the hyperlink. More often, however, the back arrow will take the reader back to the Table of Contents, or front cover of the book. Not all the links worked when I went through the book

I did not fine any grammatical or mechanical errors. I think the book is well-written and appropriate for high school students. I think the language may be too simplistic for most college students.

I did not come across anything that was culturally insensitive or offensive in any way.

I think this book is an excellent resource for high school students, and maybe college freshman who need help in choosing and using sources for an academic paper. The book is logical, gives an overview of the process and provides excellent examples and extra activities to enhance learning. I think it also could be used as a self-study guide.

Reviewed by Miguel Valderrama, Adjunct Assistant Professor, New York City College of Technology on 4/7/19

This book is a great resource of all steps needed to be taken in an academic research process. The book's index clearly displays a suggested methodology to follow and makes it easier to comeback for the review of previous chapters. In general the... read more

This book is a great resource of all steps needed to be taken in an academic research process. The book's index clearly displays a suggested methodology to follow and makes it easier to comeback for the review of previous chapters. In general the book is easy to read and every time a new world or a particular terminology related to the topic comes up, it is clearly defined and put into context.

This book collects a series of methodologies that have been proven to be efficient when they are put into use during the process of academic research. These techniques are not only presented and described to the readers, they are also actively used in the various examples, pretty much in every chapter in the book. These techniques may not be the only way a person can start and develop a research process but they are certainly a clear and convenient way to do so for beginners. There may be complex terminology entered to the discussion which may slow down the reading process. However, this is effectively addressed by separated easy to access links; This provide more in detail definitions and exercises from a particular section.

This book is a guide that presents many particularities of research methods and techniques that have been used for long time. These methodologies have been proven to be very effective in academic research. This book not only collects many of these techniques but carefully relate them to new searching tools that are part of the communication era we live in nowadays. This was not the case just couple of decades ago. I anticipate long life to the methodologies presented in this text with years or decades before they could become obsolete. Within this context, the searching tools may keep changing but the methodologies that are used here could keep working efficiently; at least as a way to approach to a research process for an undergrad student.

The author uses a clear and easy way to understand the language and terminology that makes part of a research process. Without getting too deep into technical terminology the book marks clearly words that deserve more understanding and usually provides separate links which connects the reader with a deeper explanation. The text doesn't have very large paragraphs all around which to me allows readers to keep a good and dynamic paste. Links to previous discussed topics presents a quick way to review previous content without loosing the paste.

Consistency rating: 4

Through out the entire text it is consistent that at the beginning of every chapter there's a statement related to what the previous set of contents was, also in several parts of the book this first paragraph makes a point about how this relates to what it is about to be presented in that chapter. This is why several words allusive to the subject of research are reuse constantly in different chapters. This makes lots of sense to me as a way to keep the reader's familiarity with these terms which will also ended up increasing retentivity levels in the subject. Since the book is clearly broken down into steps they all seemed to be well placed in order to present a cohesive structure that guides the process of research.

Academic research it is a process that should be flexible by nature in many ways. Even though some parts of the process could be done simultaneously to others, this will definitely not apply to all of them. This book brings up an interesting way to order this process which even though may look rigid at times it tries to make sure that some parts are developed before others in the research. It is presented that way so that there's enough understanding of the bases before there can be any progression or even conclusions. This is mostly reflected in the techniques that are presented, where some of then have as their main job to detonate creative thinking. For example: the importance of the set of questions that are asked at the beginning is that the answers will be used mostly to clarify the end goals of a research.

This text is organized following a clear and efficient way to develop an academic research process. It is well distributed in chapters that are all connected to each other in one or other way. The book is efficient at establishing this connections, specially at the beginning and end of every chapter where there's mentioning of the previous and following topic's main ideas. This helps readers to keep track with the overall content.

This book presents an excellent graphic approach to expose its content. The electronic version has the really nice feature of having the index accessible at any point of the reading process. This text is full of links that are either deeper explanations of a particular topic or a set of exercises that are directly related to what the reader is learning. If the idea was to present the information in a format that doesn't look congested to the eyes and that it is not distracting the reader from the important ideas, the editors made an excellent job. This book can't be easier to read, follow through and understand.

Besides a couple of punctuation spaces here and then I was not able to perceive any major grammatical errors. The book is well written all around. Punctuation is pretty much excellent and its composition keeps the reader in track with the content effectible.

Particularly the topics used as examples were very diverse in therms of gender allusion, cultural backgrounds and specialized fields. Research is a process that apply to all disciplines and the professionals working in them. This makes the research process a particularly broad one. The book makes efforts to present this idea by using numerous examples that connect with different segments of the population at numerous levels.

This books is an excellent tool available to anyone who wishes to start a serious research process in almost any particular professional area or field, even amateur researchers can benefit from its content. The book was written to merge the topic content with a series of exercises, tests and examples using a cohesive testing dynamic that helps to increase retention. This dynamic becomes the most efficient way to understand what it takes to start a professional research. The steps to follow the process are laid out clearly in this guide and the important things that need to be taking in account during the research process are highlighted and deconstructed to obtain a deeper overall understanding by the reader or researcher. The fact that the reader is being quizzed constantly during the entire book generates a stronger connection with the important subjects and a good way to evaluate the reader's understanding in real time as well. Highly recommended to undergrad and graduate students and perhaps even amateur researchers becoming familiar with the process of research as well.

Reviewed by Cindy Gruwell, Professor/Research Librarian, Minnesota State on 1/11/19

Choosing and Using Sources does a very good job of covering the topic of Academic Research. Each chapter focuses on an aspect of the research process and thoroughly covers the content with easy to read text and examples/activities for student... read more

Choosing and Using Sources does a very good job of covering the topic of Academic Research. Each chapter focuses on an aspect of the research process and thoroughly covers the content with easy to read text and examples/activities for student practice. Most importantly first-year students through seniors should find the content informative and presented in a collegial format.

All of the content is accurate and explained in a manner that is easy to grasp. There are some minor typos in some of the activities, but they do not confuse the reader. The text is bias-free and includes interesting examples that students can relate to.

The overall content is highly relevant and will age very well. Updates would definite be easy to handle and manipulate. By breaking down each chapter into a variety of content areas, readers will be able to focus and review areas of concern.

Having read several print and online texts of a similar nature, it was a pleasure to come across a text that is clean, consistent, and concise. Each topic has an appropriate amount of information to get the point across as well as tips that lead the reader to additional information. The presentation is consistent throughout without any bloating often found in print texts.

The authors of the text did an excellent job of producing an online text that is consistent and easy to use. No tricks that make it difficult to navigate or confusing to read.

One aspect of the text that I especially like is the modularity that allows for the use of a particular chapter or page(s). Too often texts have chapters that make readers feel like there is no end in sight. The concise nature of this work blends extremely well with the modularity of the complete text.

What makes this text easy to adapt is the layout from beginning to end. Each chapter and section scaffolds upon the other which will allow students to build their skills in a natural manner. Knowledge attained will easily transfer from one topic to another as they move through the book.

While I believe that the text is excellent and I have adopted it for my class, I do find myself frustrated by not being able to move from one section to another within a chapter without having to go back to the contents list. This surprised me because most books and tutorials have forward and backward links, especially within chapters.

There are a few grammatical (spelling) errors in several of the exercises, however, they do not interfere or confuse the reader.

This is definitely a professional work that has no cultural issues and is an excellent example of a non-biased text.

While looking for an OER text I was delighted to come across this book. The content and flow fit in with my class content extremely well and is an excellent resources for courses in the liberal arts, general research, and library-centric classes.

Reviewed by Kathy Moss, Clinical Professor, University of Missouri on 11/27/18

The hyperlinks and examples include a wide range of topics that include cooking, surgery, architecture and sports. read more

The hyperlinks and examples include a wide range of topics that include cooking, surgery, architecture and sports.

Credit is given to an editor, production and design specialists, as well as several content contributors. No additional information is provided to support inference regarding author credibility.

The open textbook Choosing & Using Sources: A Guide to Academic Research presented material that is relevant to my current issues course, including Background reading, Developing a complex research question, Classifying sources, and Evaluating sources.

The topics are presented clearly, using an engaging conversational style and frequent tips and activities. A reader who has no background in information science may be hampered by some terms used in the book (e.g., blog, podcast, Wikipedia, browser, database, Gawker, Reddit). The book does give intentional attention to the technology-naïve audience with some skills (Control-F) and topics (brief description of LexisNexis Academic, Lantern Online).

Terms and organizational framework are consistent throughout the text.

I plan to assign particular chapters of this text that are most relevant to my course's goals. The consistency of the text's terminology and organization should permit this reading plan with minimal distraction to the reader.

The information is clearly organized with a contents listing, chapter numbers and section headers. This organization facilitates easy access for learners with a specific interest in a single topic.

The author’s frequent use of hyperlinks invites students to explore topics more in-depth.

I note a few minor typographical errors that did not adversely affect my ability to comprehend the text.

The book includes examples of non-Western sources such as the allAfrica news database. Some of the links and examples are only available to individuals who have accounts with The Ohio State University. Though the book includes examples in audio and video formats, it could be improved by giving specific attention to topics related to accessibility.

The book provides the opportunity for readers to apply the topics by analyzing its frequent examples.

Reviewed by Lori Meier, Associate Professor, East Tennessee State University on 11/8/18

This text is exceedingly comprehensive. It addresses all elements of academic research (i.e. choosing questions, exploring and selecting sources, searching strategies, citation issues, copyright) as well as providing abundant links for student... read more

This text is exceedingly comprehensive. It addresses all elements of academic research (i.e. choosing questions, exploring and selecting sources, searching strategies, citation issues, copyright) as well as providing abundant links for student use. It is lacking an index or glossary - although many concepts are defined in the various chapters.

This book is accurate and comprehensive. I would not hesitate to use this resource with undergraduate or graduate students as a beginning primer for research.

The book is relevant and timely in regards to the various resources and tech tools it mentions (Google Scholar, EndNote, Ref Works). Given the subject matter I suspect that this book will have longevity to users.

The text is clear and provides definitions for jargon/technical terminology that is used. It is very comprehensive which might be a bit intimidating for the first time reader, but all elements needed for cogent research are included and therefore necessary. I appreciate the use of student scenarios as a way to step-by-step show the thinking process of choosing research questions.

Very consistent and thorough.

This text would be ideal for use as single chapters in courses where the content is needed. While the content is crafted with Ohio State University students in mind it is still very relevant for use by students and scholars. I am already thinking how I might use this next semester with an undergraduate honor's thesis student - both as modules to be read but also as a reference source.

The book is organized in a logical manner but spends only a brief amount of time about qualitative and quantitative research as peer-reviewed sources and only gives basic definitions for those two terms. I would perhaps suggest an additional section on qual/quant/mixed methods research methodology and perhaps a quick overview of research methods or samples via discipline. Additionally, a mention of the common IRB process for Human Subject Research might be helpful to those students using academic sources that discuss that process. It is a very clear text and this could be added with just a few pages of information that might be beneficial to students.

Navigation links worked well for me. The book is easy to read and the display features are not troublesome to me.

Grammatically sound.

Appropriate and is accessible to a wide audience.

Reviewed by Kathy Lamb, ELL Specialist/ English Instructor, Miami University on 8/2/18

The text covers most areas of academic research, and has a table of contents but no glossary, which is much needed. Topics are clear and concise, transitioning smoothly from general to more specific, such as “What is a Research Question?” to... read more

The text covers most areas of academic research, and has a table of contents but no glossary, which is much needed. Topics are clear and concise, transitioning smoothly from general to more specific, such as “What is a Research Question?” to “Narrowing Topics” and finding “Related Terms”. Perfect for college freshmen.

The content is accurate, error-free and unbiased.

The source is up-to-date and it would be relatively easy to update information.

The text is easily understand and flows in a clear manner. Ideas and topics progress easily and examples are used to offer context.

Ideas build one upon another and academic vocabulary is repeated throughout.

Some parts of the book seem a little “text heavy”, but overall it is well organized with efficient flow. The embedded links in the text connect earlier concepts

One problematic is that there lacks a glossary. The table of contents is very long, but broken down so that one is able to easily reference topics. Chapters are concise enough to be read in a timely manner and effectively used.

For some of the online activities it was confusing to discern which answers were correct or incorrect. And, after clicking on and completing an activity one must go back to the former page in order to navigate further. On the other hand, being able to access other information about the chapter topics via link is a handy tool.

There are no grammatical errors.

This book is culturally relevant and not offensive or insensitive in any way.

Reviewed by Sara Abrahamson, Faculty, Minneosta West Community and Technical College on 8/2/18

This text is very comprehensive. The complete research process is broken down from start to finish. read more

This text is very comprehensive. The complete research process is broken down from start to finish.

Very accurate information.

The content is very relative to today's researchers and does a fine job of detailing types of sources.

Very easy to read with content that is easily understood by even a first-time researcher.

The content was very consistent and easy to follow because if it.

LOVED the easy of reading because of the small, digestible informational pieces!

The flow of the text was perfect, following the research process from beginning to end.

I enjoyed the hyperlinked Activities, however, they did not all work for me.

No grammatical errors found.

Very culturally unbiased.

Excellent text that I wished I had years ago!

Reviewed by Justin Megahan, Librarian / Associate Professor, Fontbonne University on 6/19/18

The text does a good job covering academic research. There is a table of contents, but I feel like a glossary and index would be helpful for this book. read more

The text does a good job covering academic research. There is a table of contents, but I feel like a glossary and index would be helpful for this book.

The content is accurate. I did not notice any errors.

The content is up-to-date. There are many databases and websites referred to in the text so it is important to check those relevant links on occasion. It would be straightforward to update the text as needed.

The text clearly steps the reader through the research process. The process is discussed in detail over the 13 chapters.

The text is consistent.

The book is modular. Chapters can be rearranged without confusion. The Copyright Chapter is a good example of a component that can be used separately as a supplemental reading in another course.

The book is organized logically. The addition of a glossary and index could help navigation.

The book has images, charts, and videos that are useful. There are quick activity questions that tests the students’ knowledge on the current topic. These activities do link out to OSU’s site so it is important to make sure those links continue to stay active.

The text contains no grammatical errors.

This book does not have cultural concerns.

Many links direct the reader to OSU resources that have restricted access. The discussion of OSU resources and tools needs to be modified to fit the reader’s institutional resources. “ACTIVITY: Quantitative vs. Qualitative” has a link that is no longer working.

Reviewed by Jane Theissen, Reference Librarian/Professor, Fontbonne University on 5/21/18

The research process is explained in detail, from how to develop a research question to where and how to research through the application of copyright, fair use and citation styles. read more

The research process is explained in detail, from how to develop a research question to where and how to research through the application of copyright, fair use and citation styles.

The content is accurate and unbiased. Most of the links, which are plentiful and well placed, are either broken or link to resources at OSU's library, which I could not access. Use of this book would require time to correct this.

The content is stable. Other than updating the links, little would need to be done to use this text.

Very clearly written; jargon is appropriately explained. Self-checks allow students to make sure they understand the material.

Each section logically builds on the previous, and tone is consistent throughout.

The text has a great deal of modularity. Each section is listed in the Table of Contents and covers a few pages or less. There is no index. It is easy to find and move to sections quickly. the structure allows one to pull sections out for other courses (which I have done).

The research process is explained step-by-step with appropriate detail and excellent graphics.

Images, charts, and diagrams serve to explain and support the text. Many seem rather large and I found them a bit distracting. Additionally, there are page breaks in strange places, leaving large blocks of white space on pages while the narrative continued on the next page. This was very confusing. It would also be helpful if the links would open in a new window.

It seemed inclusive where applicable.

This text impressed me as appropriate for high school students or college freshmen.

Reviewed by Laura Heinz, Librarian, Texas Tech University on 3/27/18

This book provides beginning student researchers with a clear and complete path to the research process for class assignments and undergraduate research projects. read more

This book provides beginning student researchers with a clear and complete path to the research process for class assignments and undergraduate research projects.

The content is presented is accurate and in an unbiased manner for students to easily grasp the process and concepts.

This book was written in 2016 and may need some minor updates. The material is presented in a logical manner that leads students through the process as they begin their research. Each chapter can be used independently as the instructor fits the chapters into course content.

This book is easily understood by an undergraduate and doesn't require extra readings or content to be understood. It is concise and clear which will be appreciated by the student as they conduct research.

This book is consistent in it's framework which leads the student to each step logically avoiding confusion or frustration.

The chapters can easily be used independently and refer students to other chapters with supporting information.

The book is written to lead students in a logical manner through the research process. The length of the chapters allows a student to easily read the chapter for that step in their research, apply it and refer to it easily.

The book downloads easily onto a laptop or e-reader. The graphics display nicely on either size screen and enhance the text.

No grammatical errors were noticed.

This book is not culturally insensitive or offensive in any way. Examples used are appropriate.

This book introduces beginning student researchers to the academic research process in a thoughtful and deliberate manner. The books lack of jargon and abbreviations will help international students learn how to better navigate an academic library for research. Instructors in all disciplines should consider this book as an additional textbook for their classes requiring research for assignments, class projects and/or papers.

Reviewed by Hilary Johnson, Learning & Teaching Librarian, The Open University on 3/27/18

The text does not include an index or glossary. However, it covers a complex (and dry) subject in an economical and stimulating fashion. Each reader would learn about the subject from the basic text but the authors have enriched the text by... read more

The text does not include an index or glossary. However, it covers a complex (and dry) subject in an economical and stimulating fashion. Each reader would learn about the subject from the basic text but the authors have enriched the text by embedding audio-visual resources, download-and-keep checklists and formative activities of excellent quality.Chapter 9 'Making an Argument' is particularly strong and complements Chapter 1's analysis of research questions well. It is an excellent resource for undergraduates, post-graduates and beyond, and could also be useful for professionals researching topics to support evidence-based practice protocols.

More tips about applying facets to search results on services like Summon, EDS or Primo would be a useful addiition. I was surprised the authors did not employ language to frame the skill development in the language of 'employability' and life-skills, which might hook readers who are not planning to engage in academic research in the long-term.

The accuracy of the book was excellent, My score would have been 5, except the advice about copyright legislation and fair use is only applicable to students of Ohio State or elsewhere in the USA; so an institution in the Britain, Ireland or Europe would not be able to use or recommend chapters 11 or 12. However, these chapters are well-judged for the intended audience; succinct and comprehensible, where so many guides are too woolly or arcane to be useful to a general readership.

Chapter 1 had a dead link to an audio-visual resource. The explanation of how to use Wikipedia for academic study was nuanced, classic and practical. The explanation of how to use truncation and wildcards were similarly time- (and platform-) proof. There is much current interest in 'fake news' and the manipulation of Facebook and Google algorithms. So it could be timely to add a section on the known issues and some practical strategies to compensate for them.

The authors use excellent, clear English that should be comprehensible to anyone with academic english reading proficiency. My only qualms related to an ambiguous use of the term "poster" (this word has a particular meaning in an academic setting which was not explained) and more extensively around the slightly simplistic and dated language used for the university library catalogue and abstract & indexing databases. One of the activity sheets is structured like a decision-tree and starts with the question "are you working from a database"; with modern resource discovery platforms and other aggregating tools, students may not be able to tell whether they are looking at results from a single database, all the databases from one supplier or multiple databases from a variety of suppliers.

The stylesheet and planning of content is elegant and the quality is consistent throughout the text.

Each chapter is split into useful subsections, with clear formatting to demarcate between topics, tips and activities. The authors have also helpfully embedded hyperlinks to relevant chapters or sections earlier or later in the book.The length of individual subsections is consistent to make reading online easy (balancing scrolling and page turning). However, the length of embedded audio-visual materials varies so a student planning their time might be surprised in places.

The text has a sensible progression of topics, with hyperlinks back and forwards to connect relevant topics. And the final chapter, 'Roles of Research Sources', pulls together the lessons learnt with a useful acronym (BEAM), giving the book a strong ending.

I accessed the text on a variety of browsers, screen sizes and operating systems without any problems with the interface.

I only spotted two minor errors - site instead of cite and White's definition (page 186) without an apostrophe.

Not all the video materials embedded are captioned making them inaccessible to some categories of disabled users.

Reviewed by Lydia Bales, Academic Skills Tutor & Librarian, Staffordshire University on 2/1/18

Considering the book is not overly large, the guide manages to be very through and comprehensive guide to locating sources and using them correctly. It even goes further in giving some great information on making an argument and writing out the... read more

Considering the book is not overly large, the guide manages to be very through and comprehensive guide to locating sources and using them correctly. It even goes further in giving some great information on making an argument and writing out the research. The chapters are in easily digestible chunks covering the process of searching and evaluating resources in a useful and cross-discipline manner. It covers the source search process of research in an easily digestible manner.

The topics are accurate and have been written in a way that they will not date too much. The links and examples of the services provided may need updating to keep them accurate but the nature of the online format makes this easily possible. The Copyright chapter is obviously only applicable to those studying in the US. Having a version of this chapter available discussing copyright law in the UK could be useful any access the course for a different location.

The topics, examples and videos used are relevant and useful and should not date too much. The links and examples of the services provided may need updating to keep them accurate but the nature of the online format makes this easily possible. Some of the examples and links are specific to Ohio State and America and this can limit the relevance for students who do not have the ability to access Ohio State resources or are not based in America. Also the copyright section specfically is obviously only US copyright law limiting it's usefulness for students based in other locations.

The writing style is straightforward and easy to follow. It is sometimes slightly repetitive but overall the information is clearly presented and the vocabulary used is not too advanced. The style is informal and it makes a weighty topic much easier to process. I think it would be useful to have a glossary in the resource for students who maybe have not come across some of the topic specific words before and need them defining.

I was impressed with the consistency considering the work is made up of different author’s contributions. I could not identify different voices within the text, which helped improve the flow of the work. The arrangement of the contents tab is very useful to help navigate to specific sections of chapters as well as the overall chapter.

The layout of the book makes this modular. You can choose which sections to look at in any order and they read clearly and separately well. The other sections are signposted throughout the text and you can link back through to these using the hyperlinks provided. I think the order could be slightly improved by moving the citing and copyright information after the information on argument and writing but because you can choose how to read the book then it is not really an issue. I think it is important to note that if you cannot play the video content or the links in the book are Ohio State Specific the book does lose some of its positive features.

Overall, the structure is straightforward and logical. It flows in a manner that is easy to read and to process. Using the navigation you can work your way through the book in any order you feel is appropriate. As I stated I feel the referencing and copyright information could be in a different place but because you can choose to read this in a different order, it does not really matter.

Having read the online version on both a PC and a tablet I found the interface both easy to use and accessible. The page and chapter length worked well on both platforms and it was easy to access the links and activities contained within the resource. I could not access the videos on the PC due to not having Adobe Flash and it would be useful to have known I would require this to access the resource in its entirety. The video content is a refreshing change to just text and the images used are overall relevant. The videos do not all include a text version and this would be useful for accessibility. A few of them do have this option. Some of the images in the text viewed blurry on my PC and tablet. I am not sure if this was an issue with my own software or an error in the book.

I did not notice any errors during this read through. In some places, the text was a bit repetitive but this not disrupt the flow too drastically.

The examples used are not offensive and are diverse in their range. They have not given examples that define the guide for specific subset of students, which makes it more applicable.

Just for accessibility purposes, I think all the videos need a text version not just some. In addition, the RefWorks program has now been updated and it is called New Refworks with a changed logo and this could be updated in the book along with the guide to setting up Refworks if your institution subscribes. I feel that there are many links that you could not access unless you were an Ohio State user and this could disrupt the flow of the book for some users.

Reviewed by Lori Jacobson, Associate Director, Curriculum Development, William & Mary Writing Resources Center on 2/1/18

The book provides a comprehensive introduction to the use of sources in academic writing. read more

The book provides a comprehensive introduction to the use of sources in academic writing.

The book is a polished, professional and appropriate tool to help students improve their information literacy.

The content is relevant for undergraduate students and their instructors. It focuses primarily on fundamental approaches to finding, evaluating, and deploying sources in order to enter the scholarly conversation. While the authors occasionally mention a specific tool, or insert links to outside sources, these are placed within "Tip" boxes that can easily be updated.

Because this book was created for students at Ohio State University, it is sometimes quite specific about tools or processes that are unique to OSU. Instructors using this book at other institutions may sometimes need to suggest their own's institution's available tools to keep the text relevant for their students.

The book is well-crafted for an undergraduate audience, taking an easy-going, friendly tone and clearly defining key terms and concepts. It is also accessibly structured, making it fairly easy for users to jump between topics, rather than requiring a linear read. Links between related sections are provided wherever it is appropriate.

The book uses a consistent design scheme and structure. Features that appear in each chapter include graphics, tip boxes, examples, activities, and summaries.

Each unit of the text stands on its own and could be easily assigned as an individual reading. Rather than being self-referential, the text will suggest that more information on a related topic can be found in one of the other modules.

The text is organized to flow in roughly the same sequence as a typical research project. Students who are reading the text while working on a project should find individual sections logically presented and relevant. This is clearly not a text designed as background reading; rather it functions best as "just in time" information for students working through the research process.

I found the text quite easy to use in it its online form. It is visually appealing, easy to navigate, and thoughtfully arranged.

I noticed a couple of typos, but no significant grammatical errors.

The examples provided are of broad interest, and most readers will have some familiarity with them. There were no insensitive or offensive comments or examples.

Choosing & Using Sources: A Guide to Academic Research is a practical tool for novice researchers. It asks students to begin the process with a research question, and then provides a step-by-step approach to creating the question. All the other chapters flow from this effective beginning, and should increase students' information literacy by helping them understand types of sources available to researchers, the relationship between sources and information needs, how sources should be evaluated, and how they can be deployed effectively and ethically. Additional chapters on argumentation and copyright round out the book's overall usefulness to students engaged in a research project. This book could be easily paired with a staged research project, and would provide students with the "just-in-time" information they need to successfully complete the assignment.

Reviewed by Kristin Green, Reference and Instruction Librarian, Penn State Worthington Scranton on 2/1/18

The aspects of academic research that are prudent to cover within the first year of any undergraduate student's general education are all covered within this textbook. From an introduction to the ethics of source use to crafting basic Boolean... read more

The aspects of academic research that are prudent to cover within the first year of any undergraduate student's general education are all covered within this textbook. From an introduction to the ethics of source use to crafting basic Boolean search strings, all facets of entering scholarly discourse are addressed in brief chapters that feel modern and accessible. While instructors may wish to supplement or replace some of the exercise sets in the text with their own assessments, the content of the text provides ample coverage if selected to serve as a primary textbook for a foundational information literacy course.

The book is accurate in addressing the current state of the information landscape as encountered in the realm of academic research, as well as the legalities of copyright and fair use.

All content within this book is current and the content within chapters sections are written in a style that today's undergraduate students will be able to learn easily from. Many of the concepts, processes, and principles that are covered in the text have an inherent longevity that will prolong the relevance of this text past its initial publication date. However some chapter sections, tutorials, and videos are institution-specific reducing the overall relevancy of using the entire text at other locations.

The text is written in a clear and concise style that current students will find very accessible. The authors consciously defined any technical terminology or jargon as it was introduced throughout the chapters. Furthermore, the technical concepts that were more complex to define are often accompanied by visuals to help convey what is being defined.

The terminology and format of the book, along with the linked exercise sets and visualizations, provide a solid consistency that will helps students focus on learning the content rather than being bogged down with understanding the textbook format.

Instructors could easily parse different chapters of this book to use for modular instruction, especially in "one-shot" or other limited instructional scenarios. Some of the chapters are a bit self-referential which may generate a minor degree of confusion if used out of the holistic context.

Organization/Structure/Flow rating: 3

While there is a logical flow to most of the chapters, some seem a little out of place such as the "Making an Argument" chapter. I would have preferred a division of chapters into sections, where the writing-related chapters were separated from the source-related chapters. I also think the chapters that covered Copyright, Fair Use, ethical source use, and citations would have a stronger flow if organized together in their own section.

The ability to navigate through the book from the table of contents page is a great feature for students, especially when the instructor is choosing to assign only particular chapters or work through some of the chapters in a different sequence. The linked exercise sets are also easy to navigate through, allowing students to focusing on applying learned concepts rather than learning new interfaces. However, throughout my review some of the linked external content would not open for me and links to external materials always have the possibility of changing which may result in future inaccessibility

No grammatical errors were detected when reviewing this book.

This book is not offensive nor culturally insensitive in any manner.

For any instructor looking for an open textbook to orient undergraduate students to the basics of the academic research and writing processes while simultaneously providing context of contemporary issues surrounding these scholarly activities, this is a comprehensive and accessible choice!

Reviewed by Anne Behler, Information Literacy Librarian & Instruction Coordinator, The Pennsylvania State University on 2/1/18

This text offers a comprehensive breakdown of the academic research process, with special effort made to demystify jargon that may present itself in either the classroom or library environment. Beginning with establishing a research question and... read more

This text offers a comprehensive breakdown of the academic research process, with special effort made to demystify jargon that may present itself in either the classroom or library environment. Beginning with establishing a research question and carrying through to integrating and citing sources, the text includes practical tools for students to use in their own research, as well as links to supplemental information. If anything, the text errs on the side of providing too much information, such that a novice researcher may feel overloaded.

The text offers an accurate articulation of the research process, and avoids bias by covering a wide variety of potential information sources, including the use of web search engines other than Google.

Because the information landscape is constantly shifting, the text will require fairly frequent review. This is particularly important when it comes to how web sources are addressed. For example, the book does not address fake news and/or dealing with problematic web resources, and it glosses over use of social media as an information source. However, the concepts related to the research process itself change very little, and the information presented about them has staying power.

The text is written in accessible language, and works to address uses of jargon that are typical within the academic environment by providing explanations for what professors typically want when they request a particular item in the research process. This is an effective way to establish relevance with students, as well as clarify academic expectations.

The language within the text is consistent and accessible, with helpful insertions of definitions and/or links to explanatory supplementary information online.

The text's sections are clearly and logically labeled, and could very easily be plugged into a course in part or whole.

The order of topics in the text follow the research assignment process, from point of assignment decoding through to writing and source citation. Given the audience for the text and its intended purpose, this makes great sense.

The text contains links to many outside web sources that may provide helpful supplemental information for the reader; however many of these links were found to be dead. Comprehensive review of all links is highly recommended. In addition, I recommend continuing review of available videos related to the topics, as many selected are either rudimentary or contain dated material.

The writing and grammatical quality of this text are of the highest quality.

The text is culturally relevant and inclusive in its examples.

As stated, this book holds great utility and relevance, but requires updating for links to external web resources. It will also need to be adapted to keep up with the changing landscape of information sources themselves.

Reviewed by Craig Larson, Librarian, North Hennepin Community College on 2/1/18

The book is very comprehensive, sometimes almost too much so (sections on copyright seem to be more detailed than the average college student would need or perhaps be interested in; the section on the lifecycle of information, while interesting,... read more

The book is very comprehensive, sometimes almost too much so (sections on copyright seem to be more detailed than the average college student would need or perhaps be interested in; the section on the lifecycle of information, while interesting, also is a bit questionable as to its overall relevance). Instructors who choose this book for a one- or two-credit information literacy course will have much more material at their hands than they can reasonably cover in a semester. This book would make a good companion volume to just about any course involving research.

The content is accurate and unbiased. As an example, I was interested to find that the author actually recommends that students use Wikipedia, at least in the very early stages of research, to get an overall picture of their topic. So many college instructors, regardless of the subject, seem to have a strong aversion to Wikipedia. Here, the author actually goes into some detail on how using the references in an entry can lead the researcher to additional sources he/she might not find through other means. Some of the activities are a bit misleading or written in such a way that there could be more than one right answer, which isn't necessarily an error, but could be tightened up a bit.

The content is largely relevant and up-to-date, though I was a bit surprised to not find a section addressing "fake news," which has become such a watchword over the past year. I was also a bit surprised that, although the author has a section talking about which "neighborhood" certain types of information "hangs out," there wasn't a discussion of different domain names, such as ".edu," ".org," and ".com" and what they indicate to readers. Also hampering the book's relevance somewhat is an overabundance of examples and activities that require an Ohio State student ID to log-in. Many of these would have to be re-worked or re-written for the book to be useful at other schools.

In large part, the book is clearly written and new ideas are clearly explained. The writer does a pretty good job of avoiding jargon and technical terminology or where it can't be avoided, of providing examples and clear definitions of terms. Some of the activities aren't so clearly written that there is one obviously correct answer. Also, some of the scoring of activities isn't clear enough to indicate to the user what was wrong and why it was wrong or even the correct answer that should have been chosen. Not every concept is adequately explained or thoroughly developed (for instance, the crucial process of moving from an initial reading to a research question could use further clarification and development). Another area that could use further discussion and development would be how to use databases.

The book is largely consistent, though there are occasions where the consistency falls through. For example, most of the accompanying activities will open in a new window, but not all. There were several occasions where this reader closed out an activity window and closed out the entire book as well. This is an area that someone really should take a look at, as it can be confusing and irritating for the user. Also, the fact that many of the book's activities require an Ohio State student ID effectively locks out users from other institutions.

The book is largely modular, with sections that can easily be broken apart and assigned at different points in the course. There is a very useful table of contents, broken down by subject into smaller pieces that can easily be accessed. As mentioned previously, the book is very comprehensive, almost too much so at times, so having this table of contents is very helpful.

The book is fairly-well organized, though there are things placed in odd locations that could be touched on earlier or later, as the case may be. For instance, there is a good discussion fairly late in the book about deciding whether to quote, paraphrase, or summarize, which would have been much more useful if it was placed in the section of the book that directly addresses each of those activities. Instead, it is placed in a section on academic integrity (which, again, is very Ohio State-specific, too much so, really). I also question the relevance of a chapter on creating an academic argument, which if it is to be included at all, would seem to make much more sense earlier in the book, when students are learning the basics of research and how to apply it to their writing.

The book is largely free of significant issues, although as mentioned previously, many of the activities require an Ohio State student ID to log-in and use, which makes them useless to students from other institutions. Also, the activities are sometimes difficult to follow--one doesn't know why one answered incorrectly or what the correct answer even is in some instances. And the fact that some activities open a new browser window and some don't can also be confusing. There are a few activities that lead to broken links.

There are the occasional run-on sentences and spelling mistakes in the text. It's almost impossible not to have some issues in this area. However, the infrequent errors don't detract from the book or its overall usefulness, though it might be a good idea for someone to go through the text and try to clear some of these up.

The book does a good job of avoiding being culturally insensitive or offensive. Activities and examples are written in such a way as to be inclusive. Many of the examples link directly to sites that deal with minority themes and issue.

I think, on the whole, this is a very useful book and one that could be put to immediate use in many instances. However, the number of activities and examples that require an Ohio State student ID to access make this less relevant than it could be if the author had striven for more universal examples.

Reviewed by Mairéad Hogan, Lecturer, National University of Ireland, Galway on 2/1/18

This book covers the subject matter in a comprehensive and detailed way. The way in which the material is presented is very suitable for students who have not previously been involved in academic research as it starts at the very beginning and... read more

This book covers the subject matter in a comprehensive and detailed way. The way in which the material is presented is very suitable for students who have not previously been involved in academic research as it starts at the very beginning and assumes no prior knowledge. It has additional features that help to reinforce the material, such as activities and MCQs. These help to reinforce the learning and test the reader’s understanding. Additionally, the examples used are very useful and helpful in gaining understanding of the subject matter.

It goes into the material in depth and not only tells students how to progress their research but also explains clearly why they should be doing it this way. For example, it explains to students how to differentiate between good and bad sources. However, I have one small concern with this aspect. They do not tell students how to differentiate between different standards of peer-reviewed journals. They do mention looking at citation count but state that is not a useful measure for very recent articles. Some discussion on determining the quality of the journal itself would be helpful. For example, looking at citation counts for the journal, rather than the article would be one example, as would looking at rankings.

Overall, I would see this as an excellent reference book to last students through their academic careers.

The material itself is accurate. However, many of the links to additional material either do not work or are inaccessible to those without OSU credentials.

The material is mainly presented in a way that will last. However, many of the links no longer work so these should be checked and alternatives put in on a regular basis. Additionally, there are links to videos that may not be there in the future, although all I clicked on were available. However, the text description of the videos did not work. Many of the activities (MCQ’s etc) have a dated feel about them in terms of layout and interaction. The design of them could do with some updating.

The writing itself is very clear and easy to understand. Diagrams are used to good effect to clarify concepts (e.g. use of Venn diagrams to explain Boolean concepts). However, some of the terminology is not as clearly defined as it could be. While terms are generally explained clearly in the text, it would be nice to have a glossary of terms. Additionally, the MCQs are not always clear as if the reader gets an answer wrong it is not always apparent which is the correct one.

The book is consistent in writing style and interface.

The book is structured in a modular format whereby the reader can dip in and out of different sections, as they need to. Equally, for a student starting out, it is structured in a way that is likely to follow the steps in the same order as the student, making it a good companion to their research projects.

The book was organised in a very natural and sensible way and flowed smoothly from one topic to another. Links were provided to related sections of the book where relevant so that if the reader forgot what was meant by a particular topic, they could easily hop back and forth. The book started at the very beginning with good coverage of developing a research question and then progressed through tools and sources to help with this. The additional activities were all web based, which works fine if you have easy access. However, I was using a kindle with poor broadband so struggled to access it at times. It also felt a bit disruptive leaving the book to do the activities. It’s also not always clear whether links lead to another part of the book or to an external site. The tips are a useful addition. The stand out when flicking through the book and help to reinforce the important points. It is also useful the ways steps are clearly broken down into sub-steps.

I downloaded it to Kindle, and found a number of issues. It struggled to deal with larger fonts, resulting in some text not being visible.. There were also references to “the bottom of the page” but the bottom of the page varies depending on font size. Not all of the activities worked. Some of the activities required OSU credentials to access them, which was frustrating.

There were some minor grammatical and typographical errors but nothing major.

The book is very US centric in its use of examples. For example, there is an American football example and news sources referred to are US based generally. Additionally, copyright discussion is US centric.

Overall, I found this to be an excellent book that will help students in their research projects. I think it is a book that they will use for a number of years as it is has sufficient depth to help at different levels. The one main change I would make would be to broaden OSU references and activities so they are referring to databases in general, for example, rather than simply talking about the OSU one. Much of the material is relevant regardless of institution but a reader unfamiliar with databases would not be aware of this and might skip over some very useful information.

Reviewed by Anthony Patterson, Assistant Professor, North Carolina Central University on 2/1/18

Choosing and Using Sources is an extremely thorough text taking readers through the research process from formulating research questions to fair use and copy right issues. I particularly liked the online examples and resources including quizzes... read more

Choosing and Using Sources is an extremely thorough text taking readers through the research process from formulating research questions to fair use and copy right issues. I particularly liked the online examples and resources including quizzes and videos. The table of contents is thorough but there is not a glossary. While this is a strong text some discussion of theory and how theoretical frameworks are used in academic writing.

While the text could have addressed additional areas, the authors were accurate and detailed. Chapter 8 - How to Cite Sources is well done and accurately takes novel researchers through when they should and should not provide citations.

The authors present how to develop, approach, and conduct sound research in a well thought out format. This text is up-to-date addressing issues like Wikipedia and Google Scholar. While issues around these information sources will change, the way this text is set up, it can easily be updated in the future.

The book is well written, clear, and easy to follow. Jargon such as primary, secondary, and tertiary sources were explained clearly with appropriate examples. This text will be accessible for my students and most others pursuing advanced degrees.

The authors are consistent throughout the text when discussing topics like presenting arguments and the relationship this has with concepts like research questions and the sources researcher select. While consistency is expected is difficult to do especially when writing as a team. More impressively is the consistency of supplemental materials throughout the text.

The book has long chapters and occasionally I had some difficulty knowing where one section ended and another began but overall it is readily divisible. Another important aspect of the text are the supplemental materials like online quizzes and videos which are also clearly align with the sections in the text.

I was skeptical at first when I began reading but the overall organization of this text is good. Even though the text is about writing and sources, a section of theory and incorporating theoretical frameworks would have strengthen the book. However the topics selected flowed well and led potential researchers through a logical process.

A few problems linking to sum supplemental materials but overall I was impressed by the quality of the graphics as well as the links to quizzes and videos that were provided.

I did not come across any grammatical or typographical issues.

I did not see any cultural insensitive examples or information provided. However I also did not see a lot of racial or ethnic diversity in examples throughout this text. Overall, I feel the authors approached the subject matter appropriately.

Reviewed by Rachelle Savitz, Assistant Professor, Clemson University on 2/1/18

The text is quite comprehensive regarding finding, using, and understanding sources. It provides the process of sourcing from start to finish with examples and activities provided throughout to support the reader. Various ways to find sources... read more

The text is quite comprehensive regarding finding, using, and understanding sources. It provides the process of sourcing from start to finish with examples and activities provided throughout to support the reader. Various ways to find sources are described. There is a focus throughout on software and databases for the students at the authors institution and that can be confusing to readers from other institutions. The information provided regarding citing, ethics and copyright, and fair use was informative and would be beneficial to the reader. There were sections throughout that could have been more in depth and more specific. For instance, when going over the various ways to cite sources, additional examples could be provided and the version/edition should be listed. For instance, was the APA citation in APA 6th edition format? Also, make sure to address citing from secondary sources as students do this often and tend to cite what they read even if they read it from another text. The TOC was helpful and allowed ease of understanding what was to be covered in each section. One main complain that I have was regarding the additional information provided to help the reader in writing a paper. This information would be helpful for basic college writing but not for academic writing, thesis or dissertation writing. The sections required for some of these papers are not discussed and the text eludes that the sections provided regarding writing an argumentative piece would be appropriate for all. Also, synthesizing information could be explained a bit more and with more depth. Synthesizing includes more than critiquing and summarizing. All in all, the sourcing information is spectacular and the additional information could be expanded upon.

Accuracy of sourcing was spot on. Some of the additional categories discussed, as mentioned in the first section of this review, could be expanded upon to fully explain that category, if it is to be included in the book. The examples and activities provided were quite good and would be very beneficial for students to apply what they are learning in real-life contexts. Links were provided for extending information. I did not attempt to open every link but making sure they are up-to-date will be important as time goes forward. I also feel that the section on popular texts can be misleading. Stating that the Washington Post is "popular" eludes that it is not reliable or valid. This is not necessarily true as many experts in various fields write sections in "popular" newspapers.

As previously stated, a lot of links go to OSU resources. This could be problematic for any reader that is not at OSU. More information should be provided to support any student in the world as that part would be confusing to many students.

The text is easy to read and follow. All new information is explained and then examples and activities are provided. This is student friendly and allows any reader to quickly follow along and understand what is being stated, especially regarding the sourcing elements. As stated above, there are some sections that could/should be expanded upon for clarity and this might be best for beginning university students but the text was easy to understand in regards to sourcing, citing, and fair use. More information on how to use the sources and sections of papers would be beneficial to all students.

Each chapter seemed to follow a similar structure that followed the TOC.

Modularity rating: 3

Reading the book online provides ability to chunk the text based on assignments and can be read chapter by chapter, entirety or starting at different places. Due to the extensive amount of outside links and examples, this would be quite different if read in paper format. This book truly has to be read online to ensure benefit from all of the additional activities, links, examples, sources, etc. In addition, the many links specific to OSU would not be helpful for other students.

The organization is consistent from chapter to chapter. Information is explained and then examples and activities are provided to further knowledge. This works well for readers that needs examples.

Using a laptop provided no issues. However, when using a smartphone, the pages changed in size and various display features did not load properly or at all.

Very few grammatical errors were noticed.

No cultural issues noticed other than the many OSU references and sources. This could be offensive to other institutions as they will not be able to access many of the links.

Reviewed by Scott Rice, Associate Professor, Appalachian State University on 2/1/18

The book is very comprehensive which sometimes detracted from its usefulness. There were a few units that may be superfluous, but I did appreciate that the author seemed to err on the side of inclusivity, leaving it to other adoptees how much... read more

The book is very comprehensive which sometimes detracted from its usefulness. There were a few units that may be superfluous, but I did appreciate that the author seemed to err on the side of inclusivity, leaving it to other adoptees how much content they might use and repurpose.

The book is error-free and appears to be free of bias.

The book is pitched to an Ohio State University audience, so some of the resources pointed to would not be the same as a potential adopter's institution might select. In addition, the book needs some updating regarding the impact of social media on the information cycle. Social media formats are mentioned, but a fuller treatment of how they fit into the information climate would be a good addition.

The text was clear and easy to read, and provided numerous examples for its points. It also did not rely on jargon in its explanations, which makes it much more accessible.

The text was consistent in its use of terms. I found its tone consistent, as well as the level of explanation for the wide variety of concepts explored.

The organization of the text into units makes it very easy to break the content apart into smaller units and use it for a variety of purposes. I could see using the content for different parts of several courses, as well as incorporating it into e-learning content.

The topics are presented in a logical fashion, following the path that a typical research assignment might take. This will also make it easier to fit within the flow of a course that uses the textbook to teach about the process of academic research.

The interface of the text itself works appropriately, but some of the ancillary quizzes and extra material did not work so well. Many of the graphics did not work as well within the pdf format as they do in the web format.

The textbook was free of grammatical errors and was easy to read.

The text did not appear to be culturally insensitive.

I am exploring the creation of a for-credit information literacy class at my institution and this book is a possible candidate for adoption for the course.

Reviewed by Bryan Gattozzi, Lecturer, General Studies Writing, Bowling Green State University on 2/1/18

I was impressed how the text began helping students understand the benefits of leading a research project by writing research question(s), following with assessment of research methods, and thinking about research writing as an avenue to test a... read more

I was impressed how the text began helping students understand the benefits of leading a research project by writing research question(s), following with assessment of research methods, and thinking about research writing as an avenue to test a hypothesis instead of one simply confirming a previous, and perhaps uninformed, belief.

The book didn't seem to dismiss any possible research method. Instead it provided suggestions of how and when any individual research method may be relevant.

The book was published last academic year and the content included is still relevant, mostly because best-practices in research (and research writing) haven't changed much.

The volume of research methods students can use given the internet's power is ever increasing, yet the book does well to isolate a handful of long standing tenets that academic writers have used for decades while allowing for discussion of web-based writing and multi-modal presentation methods instructors may increasingly require students to use.

Each section is concise, clear, and easy to follow . . . for me.

I assume students will be capable of reading the text, performing quizzes provided, and plotting out a research path to complete their assignment(s).

Then again, as an academic I obsess over these issues. I can see a student yawning while reading this text.

The content isn't especially fun to read yet the information provided in relevant and time-saving if students are willing to relax, read actively, and apply the material to the assignment their instructor has given.

I don't imagine many students would seek the book out and read about research methods, yet an instructor can pair excerpts from the book with specific assignments along a student's research path to help the student retain and apply the helpful suggestions in the book.

The text does well to allow students to name the process they're going through when composing a research question then deciding on what research path fits their question. Students are guided to consider what blend of qualitative / quantitative, primary / secondary / tertiary, or public / professional / scholarly research will fit their research and writing goals.

The book refers back to the same terms throughout and provides students with active learning worksheets to plot a research AND writing plan to complete their work, one they could conceivably follow throughout their academic and professional career.

Each subheading contains, on average, not more than a page of content allowing instructors the ability to easily limit reading assignments from the book to concise, focused sections.

The book is very process-based, and follows the workflow necessary to write a successful academic researched assignment.

The limit of this strategy might be students being overwhelmed with so much discussion of process they'd be paralyzed to inaction.

An instructor, then, would have to be direct in assigning reading materials relevant to a student's immediate research goal.

I like how the text follows the path a student would follow: from narrowing a research question, selecting and reviewing research materials, then choosing how to implement them ethically in writing.

It also details how to process research considerations students may not consider including how to archive research results, to respect copyright law when publishing blog posts or submitting student work to an online repository.

The text contains many online activities, sample research artifacts, and instructional handouts. Some require on Ohio State student authentication. The text is still useful without access to these materials, though an instructor would have to alert students to this issue.

Text was proofread well.

Didn't see any culturally insensitive content.

Reviewed by Jonathan Grunert, Assistant Professor of Library Services: Information Literacy Coordinator, Colorado State University - Pueblo on 2/1/18

This textbook covers the concepts found in the ACRL frameworks in a way that is meaningful and accessible to academic researchers at all levels. It adequately provides a discussion of the complete research process, with clear signposts as to which... read more

This textbook covers the concepts found in the ACRL frameworks in a way that is meaningful and accessible to academic researchers at all levels. It adequately provides a discussion of the complete research process, with clear signposts as to which steps writers might need to revisit to improve their work.

The content appears to be accurate to 2016, with some acknowledgement that finding sources is an activity that has seen many changes in the past few decades, and will likely seem more, and rapidly.

Information discovery and retrieval is a rapidly changing process in a changing field. But much of the content in this textbook—as far as general advice and instruction for finding resources and the ways to use them—remains relevant. As information processes change and as information uses change, I have no doubt that librarians will be at the forefront of maintaining the relevance of a textbook like this one through various edition changes.

This textbook is clear, and accessible to researchers at all levels. Jargon, where present, is well-explained, and the contexts for the various components of the textbook are provided.

The text and frameworks in this book are consistent with ACRL frameworks as well as with the ways librarians tend to talk about finding and using sources. Furthermore, the book consistently uses the same terminologies to clearly explain sometimes difficult practices.

I would be very comfortable using any chapter of this book to teach a component of the academic research process. The chapters are discrete, with well-defined boundaries. The modularity of this textbook helps reinforce the overarching idea in this book: the iterative research process. Students might read the chapters in virtually any order, and come away with a valuable understanding of the research process.

This textbook presents the research process in the way that many students and faculty think about the process—from the perspective of the end goal, and through the organizational structure of an academic paper. But, it also indicates throughout the process places when the researcher needs to revisit an earlier step, to modify the project, or to make the end product more meaningful.

No issues in the interface; nothing distracting from the content.

Some minor punctuation errors, but no grammatical errors that distract from the content.

This textbook comes from an American perspective for ways of searching for, retrieving, and using information, as well as the traditionally American ways of constructing arguments. Though there is not discussion of other cultural ways of arguing academically, this textbook does not dismiss or otherwise denigrate other cultures; nor is it insensitive in any way.

Many examples are university-specific to the libraries at Ohio State University, as should be expected from a textbook such as this. As such, this book will be most helpful to students using the book at OSU. However, instructors using this book need to be aware of this focus, and must prepare to supplement with materials accessible by researchers outside OSU.

Reviewed by Susan Nunamaker, Lecturer, Clemson University on 2/1/18

This textbook is comprehensive. It goes in-depth covering the topics of research questions (specifically how to narrow down topics), types of sources, sources and information needs, precision searching, search tools, evaluating sources, ethical... read more

This textbook is comprehensive. It goes in-depth covering the topics of research questions (specifically how to narrow down topics), types of sources, sources and information needs, precision searching, search tools, evaluating sources, ethical use of sources, how to cite sources, making an argument, writing tips, copyright basics, fair use, and roles of resource sources. The textbook hits all of the topics that I plan to cover in my upcoming classroom-based research course with the exception of techniques for completing and writing a literature review. The textbook touches on the topic through a section on "background reading", but does not go in-depth. Otherwise, the textbook covers every aspect of academic research.

I found no errors or bias issues in my initial first read of the textbook.

The information and techniques provided within this textbook are up-to-date and relevant for academic research. I reviewed several textbooks before choosing this one for my upcoming masters-level classroom-based research course. I chose this book because of its relevance in regard to the practical skills needed in order to complete research assignments within the course, as well as, writing a capstone research paper.

This textbook is clear and exceptionally readable. It is organized by research skills in an order that makes sense to the reader. For example, the book begins with a chapter on choosing one's research question. Verbiage is clear and concise for all levels of academia to be able to effectively utilize this text.

This textbook is consistent in terms of terminology and framework. Each chapter of the textbook builds on the last. The reader is not necessarily expected to have prior knowledge of research before reading chapter one, but should easily be able to have a good frame of reference for academic research by the end of the textbook due to its high-quality framework for scaffolding knowledge with each chapter.

This textbook does a great job of sectioning academic research into small bites for the reader. It was easy for me to create modules from the textbook's chapters, spreading the information within the text over an 8-week course. The modularity of this textbook was a selling point for utilizing the textbook with students.

This is a well-organized textbook. Each chapter builds on prior chapters. Chapters are organized in a logical manner. The first chapter begins with the purpose of research questions and builds content to assist the reader in narrowing down options for research questions. The textbook progresses to assist the reader in building skills as an academic researcher throughout the textbook.

No interface issues were discovered during my initial exposure to the online format. I printed the PDF (because I still love paper) and all display features printed properly. The online navigation is easy to use and pleasing to the eye, as well.

No grammar issues were detected during my initial review of the textbook.

This text is not culturally insensitive or offensive in my opinion.

This is an excellent textbook if you are looking to utilize it to introduce students to the academic research and writing process. Its layout and design and conducive to module-based instruction, and the content is well thought out and beneficial.

Reviewed by Diane Kauppi, Library Faculty, Technical Services & Systems, Ruth A Myers Library at Fond du Lac Tribal & Community College on 2/1/18

The text did a great job of covering the subject and the table of contents were laid out well. The content was well thought out. read more

The text did a great job of covering the subject and the table of contents were laid out well. The content was well thought out.

I found the accuracy to be good. The content is a good representation of what a student needs to know in order better understanding library research.

The content itself is good & should stand the test of time for the near future. The only exception is that even though it's only one year from the publishing date (2016) many of the links are broken. And I would have preferred a OER text that was geared more generally for application to any institution vs. the inclusion of OSU specific references, links, resources.

For a text written to a 4-year university/college audience the text was good. For a 2-year community college audience some of the terminology would need to be defined.

I found the consistency to be good. It followed through each section with including tips, activities, etc.

I think the modularity was good. And the text could easily be broken down into smaller sections to be used as units by themselves or refresher units. The only issue would be where there are links within a module that link to other modules. Add to this that these links didn't work-- I rec'd errors each time I tried a module link.

The overall organization and flow as great. As stated on p 6 ("... as though you are conducting a research project while reading them [the sections]...") this made my logical side happy.

I like the links to activities for students to practice the skills being taught. The problem though was that many of the links no longer work. Additionally, many of the links are to areas not available to users who are not affiliated with OSU. And as mentioned in another review section, module links to other modules didn't work either.

I found the grammar to be quite good with only a few exceptions or where it was clunky at times.

I thought the text was neutral in this area. Nothing that blatantly jumped out at me.

I appreciated the link to application of research to other areas of our lives outside of academic research. I try to get this point across to students, especially when they are hesitant and resistant to library research. I found the "tips" & "summaries" to be a nice added 'pop' & easy for referring back to later. I liked the bold letters/words for emphasis. And the suggestion to "brush up" on p 31 was a nice touch vs outwardly assuming they don't know. The downloadable templates are a great resource for students. Overall, I found the text to be a good resource.

Reviewed by Kristine Roshau, Instructional Technology Specialist and PT Faculty Librarian, Central Oregon Community College on 8/15/17

This text is extensive! Like the title suggests, it truly is a full guide to academic research, from developing a topic, finding sources, and using them appropriately. It also follows the logical order of the search process, from identifying an... read more

This text is extensive! Like the title suggests, it truly is a full guide to academic research, from developing a topic, finding sources, and using them appropriately. It also follows the logical order of the search process, from identifying an information need, evaluating source quality (and purpose), and how to perform complex searches. It also highlights several common areas where academic research can be performed, from the college library catalog to specialized databases and how to find academic sources on the free web.

The book also covers what to do once sources have been found, including the importance of properly citing sources, ethical use of source material, and how to cite unusual or non-standard source material. It then moves into addressing the writing process: developing an argument and idea, writing tips, and a large section on copyright, fair use, creative commons, and public domain.

The table of contents is very granular, which is helpful. The sections vary in length, but given the overall size of the book (190 pages) having a very specific TOC is useful when returning to the text as a reference source.

I did not find any objectionable or questionable content. The authors have done a good job of selecting examples for each section (often with associated online activities or examples linked out to the web) that are varied and unbiased, but also represent realistic examples of what students might be encountering during their research process. I was really pleased when looking through the section on citing sources - styles can change, but the book is written in such a way as to be comprehensive about the purpose of citing sources, and links out to many helpful web sources, citation tools, etc so the information will remain accurate in the textbook even if the style guides themselves are updated in the future.

The section on copyright is similarly done.

See previous note - it is clear the authors have taken care to include examples that will remain relevant, not evaporate into popular culture, and provide flexibility where the content may be updated or changes (such as copyright law and citation style guides). They do provide a LOT of external links and activities, not all produced by Ohio State. So it's possible that some of their links may break in the future. It does appear that they have made an effort to either link to open sources they control, or which are unlike to change significantly (ie: government websites).

If I were using this text, I would probably modify some of the resource sections (eg: databases) to reflect those that the students at my institution have access to, though the writers do make a point of identifying OSU access-only resources where applicable. I would also update the copyright/plagiarism section to include our college's student handbook blurbs, etc.

The tone is extremely approachable in all of the areas I checked. This is extremely important in academic research where there are a lot of areas of possible legal entanglement, and the authors have done a credible job of breaking down complex concepts into approachable prose and examples.

The textbook is consistent in both writing and structure; however, I do with the table of contents was split into sections in the same way the content is. Page numbers are given though, so that's not really a big deal. There were one or two places where I saw formatting errors, but nothing overly distracting - it did not adversely effect the content.

It is visually appealing and for the most part, easy to navigate. No huge blocks of text, and it also intersperses activities, tips, and examples. The text is also organized in such a way that it can be used as a reference, without needing to be read from start to finish in order to make sense, which is helpful for the researcher who may need to pop in for just pieces of the work.

However, there is a strong presence of external sources (often OSU library webpages) and activities that are linked out of the text. The writing itself is certainly standalone, but the book would lose a lot of its character if it were printed and not viewed digitally. I would have liked a References or bibliographic section that listed some of these resources, but there wasn't one, meaning the user would not be able to search for the resource if the linked text didn't work.

I can see the potential for too many asides for activities to be distracting, but they are generally held to the end of their relevant sections, so it wasn't too overwhelming. The organization follows a logical research process, walking the reader through from beginning to end.

As mentioned before, there are a few places where it looks like images have distorted the intended formatting, pushing items to empty pages, etc. But these instances are rare. A few of the images could be higher resolution, but they were certainly legible (and I was viewing this text at 125% zoom on a larger screen, so my experience is probably not representative of every reader).

It is long though, and I would have loved to be able to jump to sections through anchor bookmarks in the content page - that would be a nice touch.

I also found a few broken links, which is not totally surprising, given the volume of them in this book.

None noticed in this review.

No objectionable content found - the authors have chosen inclusive examples wherever possible, while remaining realistic about subjects students might be researching.

Not all of the links to activities are self-describing (there are no plain URLs, but many of the activity links contain the same 'Open Activity in Web Browser' text, which would be confusing if a user was navigating with a screen reader.

Reviewed by Deborah Finkelstein, Adjunct Professor, George Mason University on 6/20/17

The book is very comprehensive. The authors consistently explain concepts well and provide easy-to-understand examples that are approachable for the undergraduate audience. For example, the authors don’t just say, “narrow down your source,” they... read more

The book is very comprehensive. The authors consistently explain concepts well and provide easy-to-understand examples that are approachable for the undergraduate audience. For example, the authors don’t just say, “narrow down your source,” they go through steps to narrow it down, walking students through the process. (p 9) Very thorough. They also spend a page and a half giving examples of “Regular Question” vs. “Research Question.” (p 13-14) This ensures that students will understand the difference. They also do well with explaining fact vs. option, objective vs. subjective, primary vs. secondary vs. tertiary sources, popular vs. professional vs. scholarly magazines, when to quote vs. paraphrase vs. summarize, and other concepts that are critical to performing research.

The book does not have an index. The table of contents is quite thorough and very useful in understanding the breakdown of the book or locating certain topics.

The book is error-free.

There are many digital examples in the text. As long as authors make updates as technology inevitably changes in the future, the book should remain relevant.

The book has a conversational tone that is connective, trustworthy, and approachable for the undergraduate audience. This makes it easy to read and easy to understand.

The book is very consistent with tone, and terminology.

In the introduction, the book encourages students to “jump around a bit in this guide to meet your needs.” (p 5). The book stays true to this idea. Students could read the book straight through, but it is well-designed for “jumping around.” The sections stand alone, and instructors could easily assign sections in the book out of order. This book could be used as the only textbook in a classroom, or an instructor could use these modules to supplement an existing textbook. Topics are easily found in the book thanks to an excellent table of contents, a clear organizational structure, and a great use of headers.

The book is well-organized and follows a logical structure. Individual topics are also well-organized. The authors break processes into step-by-step, making is easy for students to learn.

Great use of visual aids. For example, there is a chart on how to narrow down research topic (p 9), and a chart on the roles of resources in research (p 179). These items are great for visual learners, and they make the text come alive while emphasizing important concepts.

The book shares links to outside sources. This provides students that would like more information that is beyond the book with resources. It additionally provides students links to activities, such as one that asks them if a source is primary, secondary, or tertiary (p 34). On occasion, it links to outside companies, such as citation management software, news outlets, and social media, making the book a resource. In this way, the book utilizes the medium of a digital book.

The book is free of grammatical errors.

The book is culturally sensitive. The book is designed for Ohio University students. Examples given occasionally apply to Ohio, such as when the authors are providing examples of newspapers, they list two out of six that are from Ohio, including the campus newspaper (p 43) There is also a link to the OSU Libraries’ newspaper database (p 44), and when talking about citation management software, they mention the three that are available at OSU. It’s not a large enough issue that one should not use the book; it’s still easy to understand, but it is a limitation and worth mentioning to students.

I teach a 300-level English class on performing research and writing research papers. I plan to utilize this book next semester due to the excellent organization of modules, the approachable tone, and the great explanations and examples.

Reviewed by Constance Chemay, Head of Public Services, Library Services; Asst. Professor, User Instruction, River Parishes Community College, Gonzales, LA on 6/20/17

The book does an excellent job covering the subject, and even goes beyond what its title suggests, with chapters on writing and formulating an argument. The chapters on copyright and fair use are exceptional. However, it lacks both a glossary and... read more

The book does an excellent job covering the subject, and even goes beyond what its title suggests, with chapters on writing and formulating an argument. The chapters on copyright and fair use are exceptional. However, it lacks both a glossary and an index. Some terms are defined in their appropriate chapters, but not all. Some students, particularly first-year or those who may be enrolled in developmental courses, would benefit greatly from a glossary. The activities, while appropriate for their contexts, are mixed in their effectiveness; some provide good feedback with clarification, but most offer little more than a smiley face for a correct answer or an “x” for a wrong answer with no other feedback.

For the most part, this book is accurate and unbiased, but one area where I noticed discrepancies is the chapter on citing sources. MLA released its 8th edition in April 2016, yet the examples provided are 7th edition. I also noticed errors in the example for APA; only the first word, proper nouns, and those following major punctuation marks are to be capitalized in article titles following APA formating guidelines. Regarding bias, the book is unbiased; however, I disagree with the discussion of news sources regarding mainstream versus non-mainstream (or mainline as used in the text); main-stream media includes "traditional" sources, e.g., television, newspapers, and radio, as opposed to online sources, especially social media. The authors’ inclusion of Fox News, a right-leaning national television news network, a contemporary of CBS, NBC, and ABC, as non-mainline rather than mainline shows bias, in my opinion. It’s difficult to find news from any news source, mainstream or not, right, left or center, that doesn’t have some bias or opinions in its reporting.

This textbook itself is written so that it will be relevant for a long time. However, there are some exceptions. The discussion of citation styles uses examples for MLA that reflect the 7th edition rather than the 8th, which was released in April 2016. The book covers this discrepancy somewhat with its tip regarding choosing a citation style, with its remarks that styles do change and its recommendation to check with one’s instructors. Another issue is the potential for link rot regarding external websites; in fact there are a few dead links in the text and activities already. A couple of online resources mentioned and linked to, IPL2 and the Statistical Abstracts of the US, have been retired for at least a couple of years, which makes me wonder about when the book was actually last reviewed edited.

The book is well-written, easy to read, conversational. Most technical language is defined and used appropriately.

This book is consistent in terms of its terminology and framework.

This book is extremely modular in its organization at the chapter level and within the chapters. It can be easily reordered to meet specific course or instructor needs. It does refer to other sections of the text, but these references are appropriate, emphasizing more in-depth information elsewhere in the book. Sections that are unique to OSU can be replaced/revised to make the text relevant to other institutions as needed.

It is well organized and reflects the processes and stages of research. While the research process is not linear, the topics are presented in a logical manner that guides students through the process. I did note that a couple of sections in chapter 7, on ethical use of sources don’t really seem to fit there, however. The paragraphs on page 118 discussing a lack of understanding of the materials and lack of time might fit better in other chapters.

While the online version works well, the PDF format has issues. Some of the in-text navigation links work (the TOC links) while others found throughout the text don’t, often giving an “error: unknown export format” message. There are also a few dead links in both the online and PDF formats, as well as in some of the online activities. Some links direct users to OSU Libraries’ resources, either their catalog or their licensed databases, but not all such links are clearly identified as such.

Grammatical Errors rating: 3

For the most part, this text is well-written, grammatically; however, it does have a few grammatical/typographical errors, possibly more than one might expect from a text of this length, and assuming that the author is most likely a committee rather than an individual, more eyes reviewing the text should catch such errors. There are also instances of tense inconsistencies, shifting from present to past in the same sentence. Two paragraphs on page 47, under “Finding Data in Articles . . .,” repeat the same four sentences verbatim in different order. This occurs again on page 88. While these are not grammatical errors, they are certainly editorial errors. Most of the online activities have typos, as well, more so than the textbook.

This textbook is not culturally insensitive or offensive.

I do like this book. I think it puts the topic in terms that students can readily use and understand. I'd even recommend the chapters on copyright and fair use to faculty! I do think that it could benefit from the inclusion of a glossary and an index, as well as regular and frequent review, especially in regards to the linked resources. The PDF version definitely needs revisions since it seems that most of the in-text referral links throughout the text don’t work. Since it is tailored to OSU’s library resources, any instruction librarian using the book can substitute content relevant to his/her institution; non-library faculty using the text can consult their own librarians for help with this.

Reviewed by Dawn Kennedy, Ed.S, Health Education, Anoka-Ramsey Community College on 4/11/17

Choosing &amp; Using Sources: A Guide to Academic Research serves as an excellent guide for teaching the research process. It takes the learner through the process of academic research and writing in an easy to understand manner. As an educator... read more

Choosing & Using Sources: A Guide to Academic Research serves as an excellent guide for teaching the research process. It takes the learner through the process of academic research and writing in an easy to understand manner. As an educator in a community college setting, I am working with students who are new to the research process. This text will be useful when working with students to start developing the appropriate process of research writing. The text has neither a back-of-the-book index nor a glossary. It is beneficial that key terms are defined throughout the chapters.

The information presented in the text is accurate at this point in time and unbiased. One concern is that some of The information presented in the text is accurate at this point in time and unbiased. One concern is that some of the links do not work.

Content is up-to-date at this point in time. Most examples and exercises are arranged separately from the main text and can be updated as needed. Some of the content links to the Ohio State University Libraries databases which may not be assessable to students outside that institution.

This text is clearly written, well-illustrated, and user-friendly for the undergraduate audience. It avoids technical jargon and provides definitions where appropriate.

Choosing & Using Sources: A Guide to Academic Research is consistent in terms of terminology and framework.

Regarding the book’s modularity, users of this text can be selective in chapter choice. In this sense the text is useful to instructors and students who wish to focus on a single component and /or use the text as a reference. For a better understanding of the research process in its entirety, reading the text in the order written may prove to be more beneficial.

The text's organization mirrors the research process in a logical, clear manner. Chapters 1-8 lead the reader through the basics of research literacy and research skills; chapters nine and ten explain the process for making an argument and writing tips; Subsequent chapters zero in on copyright and Fair Use information. Key concepts and points are supported with highlights, examples and colorful illustrations.

The text displays generous use of visuals which are clear and free of distortion. The activities provided support the concepts and skills being addressed and are easy to navigate. One concern is the activities which are linked to Ohio State University may not provide access to all, resulting in limited access of information and frustration for the reader.

• The text is not culturally insensitive or offensive in any way.

This is a text does an excellent job of explaining the research process in a logical manner. The text uses examples, illustrations, and skill practice to support the learning process. I recommend this text for use in it's entirely for teaching and learning the research process and as a resource for the rest of us.

Reviewed by Scott Miller, Reference and Instruction Librarian, Rogue Community College on 4/11/17

The book is very comprehensive and even goes beyond what might be expected in this kind of textbook. Along with choosing and using sources, the authors include a section on making an argument. Topics are dealt with appropriately and the text... read more

The book is very comprehensive and even goes beyond what might be expected in this kind of textbook. Along with choosing and using sources, the authors include a section on making an argument. Topics are dealt with appropriately and the text employs tests and activities along the way. I found some of the activities were not particularly well designed and sometimes answers to questions were based on assumptions by the authors as to context that in real life may or may not be appropriate. For instance, they claim that the periodical/journal title "Coral Reefs" is a scholarly journal, but judging by the title alone in a real life exercise there is no way to know whether it is scholarly or popular in nature.

There could have been more discussion about context and how it defines whether a sources is primary, secondary or tertiary. '

What the this textbook does not have is any kind of index or glossary, which I found disappointing.

I did not find any instances of inaccuracies in the text. I did find, however, some assumptions in the text that were not always warranted. I took issue with the assumption that mainline news sources are objective (p. 42). It is very clear that news articles are often biased. I think telling students that mainline news sources are objective effectively disarms instead of promotes critical thinking by students doing research.

On page 126 there is a discussion about using quotations where the authors say that all quotes are to be put within quotation marks. This is not true of block quotes in MLA or APA style and they omit any mention of it.

This textbook should retain its relevancy for several years, but it will lose its effectiveness very soon, since many of the dozens and dozens of links in the text will surely break before long. In the short term the links are a great feature, but they do severely limit the longevity of the book. I also found them annoyingly pervasive.

It should also be noted that the MLA citation example on page 122 uses the outdated MLA 7th edition guidelines.

Overall, I thought the book was very clearly written and easy to follow. The one section I struggled reading was the section on sources and information need. It seemed to want much more editing and was often wordy and almost obscure.

I did not notice any lack of consistency in terminology or framework.

This is one the book's strengths. It was clearly organized into topics and subtopics which sometimes could be addressed in an order chosen by an instructor. There were, however, occasional self-references to earlier sections or previously used external sources.

Moving from the simpler aspects of choosing and evaluating sources to the more complex uses of them and how arguments are constructed made good sense.

Interface rating: 2

I found the interface to have significant problems. At least a dozen links would not work from the PDF text when opened in Firefox. I often got the message, "error: unknown export format." The links seemed to work when viewing the text online, however.

The textbook's usefulness outside of Ohio State is severely limited by the frequent use of sources only available through OSU student logins. The textbook was written for OSU students, but it really fails as a textbook for any other institution unless it is significantly modified.

I found a few missing punctuation marks, and only two missing or wrong words in sentences. For a textbook this long, that's very good.

The textbook used interesting and non-offensive examples.

While it's a good textbook for choosing and using information sources it suffers from being too specifically written for OSU students, as well as including an overabundance of links that will reduce its longevity. Not including any kind of index or glossary is also a drawback.

Reviewed by Vanessa Ruccolo, Advanced Instructor of English, Virginia Tech on 2/8/17

Ch. 1 has a great overview of regular versus research questions and the difference between qualitative and quantitative research. Ch. 2 covers primary, secondary, and tertiary sources as well as popular, professional, and scholarly. Ch. 3... read more

Ch. 1 has a great overview of regular versus research questions and the difference between qualitative and quantitative research. Ch. 2 covers primary, secondary, and tertiary sources as well as popular, professional, and scholarly. Ch. 3 includes a source plan (i.e. what do you need the sources for and what is your plan). Ch. 4 gives tips and hints for searching on a library database. Ch. 5 gives different search options, like the library or Google Scholar. Ch. 6 is all about evaluating the sources you find, including clues about sussing out bias and thoroughness, as well as discussing currency of topic. Ch. 7 discusses why you should cite sources. Ch. 8 discusses ways to cite sources. Ch. 9 is looking at argument as dialog and what is necessary in that exchange and a recommended order of components. Ch. 10 covers quoting, paraphrasing,and summarizing and signal phrases. Ch. 11, 12 are copyright and fair use. Ch. 13 covers the roles or research.

I will use Ch. 1 and 2 in my classes, as I think the breakdown of research is useful and clear. Ch. 3 also has useful imbedded tools that will help students plan; Ch. 4 and 5 might be used as references post-library visit. I will also use Ch. 6 and Ch. 10.

I think the information provided for distinguishing scholarly, popular, and professional is helpful and I hope the resources help students understand good, reliable sources a bit better. The same is true for searching for sources, and I think the sections on search engines and evaluation of sources are going to be quite useful.

While the information on copyright, fair use, and why and ways to cite sources is fine, I won't be using these for my English classes as I find them not as helpful or relevant.

I think the book is quite accurate in terms of information provided. They use sources that both I and my students use, so clearly the book is addressing real needs in the classroom. It also makes suggestions that reinforce the concepts our librarians share with the students and instructors, so I find this to be extremely helpful.

The book suggests Purdue OWL, a source I also use; however, I realized this year that OWL was behind in updating some of the MLA citation changes. So that's something maybe for the book authors to note or address when recommending websites.

With that said, I think the book covers key specifics like university library websites, Google Scholar, and search engines, in broad enough terms to keep it relevant. Also, the graphics are simple and not dated, and there is one drawing of the "outernet" that shows what social media, Youtube, etc. would look like in the "real, outer" world. This drawing is the only thing I saw that might be dated soon, but its point is still solid.

Very easy to read, clear terminology and explanation of terms, and lists are also provided to help break up each page's prose, which means the information is presented in a visually clear form as well.

I think the consistency of terminology as well as the scaffolding makes sense on the whole. I didn't seem places where the language changed or seemed to have several writers or definitions.

Perhaps one of the best parts of this book is how each chapter is contained, succinct, includes an activity, but still builds on and with the other chapters. Each chapter is stand-alone and clear and easy to read online, or if you chose to print it. The creators clearly had the online reader in mind, however, and the chapter lengths and fonts are comfortable.

Overall, I like the organization, specifically for chapters 10-6. I would change the order of the final chapters so that Ch. 9 and 10 come before Ch. 7, 8, 11, 12. I would also move Ch. 13 "The Roles of Research" to earlier in the book, perhaps around Ch. 3 or Ch. 6. If I use these materials, I will reorder some of the chapters for my class so that the scaffolding and explanations work a bit more side by side.

Again, comfortable, easy-to-read pages, simple graphics and the charts used are helpful and appropriate. I especially appreciated that the authors didn't use images that showed people or figures that could both date the book and also make students feel talked down to - I hate images like this and refuse to use textbooks that incorporate them, so kudos!

Additional resources are easy to access.

I wish the email option (for sending yourself a page) pulled up a screen in which I could type the email I wanted it sent to. Instead, it pulls up Messenger, which I don't use.

The Table of Contents didn't let me jump to the chapter when I pulled down the menu. Was that just my computer/browser?

Now, I didn't read through as though I was grading (it is winter break, after all!) but nothing jumped off the page. If something had, if there had been a mistake, I would still use the text; if there had been several, I would have considered abandoning it for class. However, the information is still so good I i might have told my students to find the grammar mistakes as part of an assignment just so that I could use the research parts still; however, I didn't not see any.

No, nothing. Perhaps if the authors include more examples for citations they could pull from culturally different sources then, but the material here was so broad in terms of textual sources it was in no way exclusive.

I will be using parts of this book in my English classes. Well done to the authors - a helpful, free supplement.

Reviewed by Dale Jenkins, Advanced Instructor, Virginia Polytechnic Institute & State University (Virginia Tech) on 2/8/17

Having taught freshmen how to write college research papers for the past 18 years, I gave the text high marks on addressing all of the key elements college students need to engage in academic research. read more

Having taught freshmen how to write college research papers for the past 18 years, I gave the text high marks on addressing all of the key elements college students need to engage in academic research.

The text implements content from a host of sources which is extremely useful, but the grammar needs a few tweaks.

This represents a strong aspect of the text. The writers did a good job of winnowing out unnecessary components of the research process, although my freshmen would not delve into the Fair Use and Copyright chapters.

The book gets outstanding marks on clarity. Students will find this to be a definite strength of the text.

The authors did a good job with consistency. I kept my students in mind as I evaluated this aspect of the text.

Students would find this book extremely accessible in terms of modularity. I don't see them being overwhelmed by the text or high-brow jargon.

I noted a logical progression to all thirteen of the chapters. Students in upper-level classes would find the chapters on Fair Use and Copyright more significant in their academic studies.

The hyperlinks and the interactive elements of the book will be extremely appealing to students as well as being substantive.

The book still needs some work in this regard. Pronouns don't always agree with the antecedents, and I noted several shifts in voice in the text.

The text doesn't have any instances of cultural insensitivity, and I pay close attention to this aspect of textbooks when I peruse them for potential use in my courses.

The hyperlinks, using different types of media, and the chapters on "Why Precision Searching?" and the discussion of plagiarism proved to be well-crafted and accessible for students. I also commend the authors for the lack of jargon that would leave students in its wake.

Reviewed by Jarrod Dunham, Instructor - English Composition, Portland Community College on 2/8/17

A very comprehensive guide to the writing of the research paper. I've taught research writing for several years, and this book covers all the material I'd typically cover in a class. Previously I've not used a textbook in that class, but I'm... read more

A very comprehensive guide to the writing of the research paper. I've taught research writing for several years, and this book covers all the material I'd typically cover in a class. Previously I've not used a textbook in that class, but I'm teaching an online section this term and find that the book offers a very effective substitute for the lectured and activities I'd otherwise be presenting in class.

This text is accurate and up-to-date with the most recent developments and issues in the field.

This text is very much up-to-date. It shows an awareness of changing conventions in academic writing, and emphasizes the latest technological tools for researching and managing citations. It frequently links to outside resources, which could be problematic in the event those resources were removed or relocated, but in practice I never encountered such an issue.

Clarity is one of the book's strengths. It is written in clear, simple, and concise prose, resisting the kind of "academese" that is frequently employed in textbooks and gives students a false impression of what academic writing should look like. I found all of the content very easy to understand, and, although it's intended for slightly more advanced classes, accessible for Freshman writing students.

The text is highly consistent, both in terms of the terminology it employs, its organizational structure, and its systematic incorporation of tips, learning activities, and quizzes.

The book is divided into 13 chapters, each of which addresses particular aspects of research writing and can be employed on its own, or in conjunction with other related chapters. I found that assigning chapters in order was generally perfectly appropriate, although there was no issue with assigning the odd chapter out of order - links to previous or later content are provided where appropriate, so students can easily navigate to other relevant sections of the text.

This text is very nicely organized. It moves from the beginning stages of the pre-writing process - choosing a topic and identifying appropriate guiding questions - through the research to the writing of the paper itself. I found that the organizational structure of the text very closely mirrored the structure I use myself in teaching research writing. As such, adopting this text for the course (and adapting the course to the text) was a delightfully straightforward exercise.

The interface of the text is excellent. It is very easy to navigate, very attractive, and all tools work as intended. Some features are only available to those with Ohio State University log-ins, which yields a handful of frustrating moments, but in general I didn't find this to be a significant issue.

The text is error free and written in a simple, accessible, and engaging style. It's not merely an easy read, but one that effectively models clear and concise academic prose for writing students.

To the extent such issues come into play, the text is inclusive and culturally sensitive. The content of the text is mostly neutral on such issues - they simply tend not to come into play - but I was pleased to find a comprehensive chapter on the ethical use of sources, which introduces an ethical dimension to the research and writing process that many students may not anticipate or otherwise be prepared to navigate.

Overall I was quite pleased with this text. In my online section of Research Paper Writing, I have assigned nine of the thirteen chapters, and am very pleased with the breadth of content covered thereby. With one exception, I've been able to assign those chapters in the order they appear in the book, which simplified the planning process for myself, and offers a structure to the course that will be more readily apparent to my students as well. Late chapters on Copyrights Basics and Fair Use struck me as unnecessary and a little off topic, but it is of course easy to simply not assign those chapters, and since this is not a print book they have no bearing on materials costs.

For an online class like the one I am currently teaching, this is an excellent primary text. Even in a face-to-face class it could prove to be a very useful supplemental text. Normally I resist the use of supplemental texts in face-to-face classes, but since this one is free it is ideal for that purpose: instructors and students can simply rely on it to whatever extent feels useful.

Reviewed by Jennifer Lantrip, Reference Librarian, Umpqua Community College on 2/8/17

This book is an excellent source for guiding undergraduate students through the research process, from understanding the purposes for doing research and writing a research question, to composing a thesis and contributing to a scholarly... read more

This book is an excellent source for guiding undergraduate students through the research process, from understanding the purposes for doing research and writing a research question, to composing a thesis and contributing to a scholarly conversation. Students learn where and how to find relevant sources and how to evaluate and use them ethically. The main text is supplemented with links to useful resources, videos, worksheets, examples, and exercises. These are all high quality sources, making this a comprehensive resource for teaching information literacy and the research process. While no index or glossary is provided, terms are well defined within the text. Links are provided to other sections within the text where terms are further discussed.

The content is error-free, unbiased, and accurate. Ideas and concepts are in accordance with the Association of College and Research Libraries’ “Framework for Information Literacy for Higher Education,” with the exception of several small sections that could easily be clarified or adapted.

The opening section of Chapter 3 states that researchers should find sources in order to meet their information needs. However, it states that one information need is “to convince your audience that your answer is correct or, at least, the most reasonable answer.” This should be clarified for students so that they understand that they should start their research with an open mind as opposed to looking for sources which support their predetermined thesis.

The section “The Sources to Meet Needs” in Chapter 3 states that convincing one’s audience is an information need and that students should find sources based upon what their audience would be convinced by. Researchers should not choose their sources based upon what would convince their audience, but rather upon what sources best answer their research question. The most relevant and highest quality sources should not be omitted from the research process because the researcher does not think that his/her audience would be convinced by them. It is part of the researcher’s job to educate and convince his/her audience why the chosen sources and the research are relevant and of high quality.

Chapter 13 mentions briefly, “Putting your sources to work for you in these roles can help you write in a more powerful, persuasive way—to, in fact, win your argument.” It is very important for researchers to make convincing arguments through using quality sources, doing quality research, and presenting the information in an understandable way. Students should understand that the goal of scholarly conversation is not to “win” arguments, but rather to contribute to the world’s shared knowledge. While one argument may hold for a time, it will most likely be refined in some way by future researchers.

The main content of each chapter is current and does not contain terms that will soon be outdated. Specific examples and exercises are arranged separately from the main chapter text and can be updated independently. Some of the content discusses and links to Ohio State University Libraries databases which are unavailable to students at other institutions. While some of this knowledge is transferable, the specific information about these databases is unique to OSU Libraries. It would be useful if this information could be generalized in the main flow of the text so that it would be applicable for students at other institutions.

This text is very readable and easy to understand. Concepts are explained clearly. Exercises and examples are provided to help students grasp each new concept. It is written in a casual tone that appears to make an effort to put its readers at ease while giving solid information about how to complete research and writing assignments successfully.

The terminology used in this book and its framework are consistent. Each chapter, chapter sections, examples, and exercises are organized in a consistent manner throughout the book, making it easy to follow. Students can refer to specific sections of the book or read it straight through. Because links are provided to sections of the book where important terms are defined or discussed further, students can easily jump to relevant sections of the book.

The book is divided into chapters and subsections which lead the reader seamlessly and logically through the research process. The book could easily be assigned to be read linearly, but it would also work well for instructors to assign specific chapters as applicable to the course content.

This book takes students through the research process in logical steps, from choosing and refining research questions, to producing and sharing what they have learned. For students who are unfamiliar with the research process, it would be most useful to read the book linearly as each chapter prepares students for future chapters.

This text is easy to navigate in both the PDF and online versions. Images are clear. There are currently no broken links. The contents in the PDF version could be made clearer by making a greater distinction between the main chapter and chapter section titles.

The text has negligible grammatical errors.

This text is not culturally insensitive or offensive.

I highly recommend this book for teaching information literacy and the research process to undergraduates.

Reviewed by Patricia Akhimie, Asst. Prof of English, Rutgers University-Newark on 2/8/17

This textbook does not include an index or glossary but is full-text searchable, returning a an easy to read and access menu of clickable search results to take readers directly to the desired information. In addition, an expandable Table of... read more

This textbook does not include an index or glossary but is full-text searchable, returning a an easy to read and access menu of clickable search results to take readers directly to the desired information. In addition, an expandable Table of Contents for the book is available as a tab so that readers can view an overview of topics and jump to other sections at any time. This textbook offers a review of research methods that is certainly comprehensive. Instructors will likely find that individual sections, rather than the whole work, are most useful in planning lessons and constructing student assignments in research based and writing intensive courses at the undergraduate level.

This textbook is accurate in its representation of research methods and of the reasoning behind these approaches. In addition, details about citation styles, and search tools, seem error-free. Treatments of the more complex aspects of research, such as constructing an argument, are unbiased and thorough.

The textbook should be useful to students and instructors for some time. It should be noted, however, that research software and citation styles are updated, though infrequently. Thus, the video walkthroughs of particular databases, for example, may be obsolete or misleading after some time.

This textbook is remarkably lucid and approachable for undergraduate readers. Discussions of complex ideas are illustrated with useful graphics that readers and instructors will find particularly helpful. The video walkthroughs are perhaps the most attractive illustrations for instructors. These guides will be appealing and easy to use for students intimidated by large databases and their idiosyncrasies.

The textbook is immanently usable. It is consistent in its tone as well as in its use of terms.

It is clear that this textbook has been designed with modularity in mind. Individual sections will be more useful than others, depending on the type and level of the class. In addition, sections can easily be assigned at different points over the course of a semester. For example, sections might be assigned at intervals that reflect the stages of the development of undergraduate student’s independent research paper. The section on formulating research questions might appear early in the semester, the section on citation styles toward the end.

The organization of the book reflects the stages of research. This means that navigating the textbook will be intuitive.

Navigating this textbook will be intuitive, the Table of Contents tab makes moving between sections very easy.

Readers will find the textbook free of simple typos and errors.

Readers will find the textbook inclusive. Some readers may find that the attempt made in the textbook to speak to research in the humanities, social sciences and sciences has meant that discussions can be vague at times but this is to be expected in a textbook on this topic aimed at a broad range of readers and researchers.

Reviewed by Heather Jerónimo, Assistant Professor, University of Northern Iowa on 2/8/17

This text is a comprehensive review of the various types of sources one might need to complete a research project or paper. The book begins with a clear explanation of how to formulate a research question, while the majority of the chapters focus... read more

This text is a comprehensive review of the various types of sources one might need to complete a research project or paper. The book begins with a clear explanation of how to formulate a research question, while the majority of the chapters focus on finding and evaluating sources. The topics in this text are well-chosen and reflect several aspects of academic writing in which beginning researchers might struggle, such as how to do a precision search, understanding biased versus unbiased sources, and how to decide between quoting or paraphrasing. This book is written at a level that undergraduates should easily be able to comprehend, while the content of the chapters gets increasingly detailed and complex throughout the book. There is no index or glossary at the back of the book, but there is a very complete table of contents at the beginning of the text. Readers might find it useful if the chapter titles in the table of contents were in bold, as the detailed breakdown of sections—while helpful—can be overwhelming when one is looking for the main categories of the book.

The text provides helpful and unbiased examples for how to do research in many different areas. The practice activities relate quite well to the content of the chapters, although some links do not work. One of the strengths of the text is its applicability in a general sense to many different types of research.

In most chapters the information is kept very general, allowing the text to enjoy relative longevity, as the process of how to conduct academic research, cite quotes, etc., likely will not change drastically in the near future. For example, in the section on databases, different types of databases are explained, but the author does not reference many specific databases to which students may or may not have access. With an understanding of the concept, students then are equipped to find the databases that pertain to their field and that are offered by their institutions. There are several references to Ohio State throughout the text that will not be helpful to all readers, but they do not impede the reader’s comprehension of the text.

It is a very readable text, written at a level that makes it easily accessible to undergraduate students. The author has avoided jargon that would be confusing to the readers.

Even though the book gives examples of various types of research and sources, it maintains a high level of consistency throughout.

The chapters are clearly divided in a way that allows the reader the option to skip between chapters or to read the chapters in succession. This text could be put to a variety of uses within the classroom. As an instructor, one could use it as a primary text for a Research Methods or Composition class. One could also suggest that students read only certain sections in a class that was not primarily focused on the writing of research papers but that had a research component. This text is a valuable how-to manual that students can reference throughout their academic journey.

The text has a logical organization and flow. The book transitions from more basic information at the beginning to more specialized knowledge in later chapters, allowing students to gradually become more immersed in the topic. The structure permits students to read the text from cover to cover, or to read only the information and chapters about which they are curious. The activities serve as good checkpoints to assess students’ knowledge and break up longer readings.

The interface of the text is easy to manage and does not distract from the content. The placement and accessibility of the activities provide quick and easy checks to assess whether students have understood the concepts of the chapters. The images support the text and are linked closely to the message.

There are few grammatical errors in this text.

The text is not culturally insensitive or offensive. Like many textbooks, it could be more intentional in its inclusion of a variety of races, ethnicities, and backgrounds, perhaps in the examples or practice activities.

Reviewed by Dr. William Vann, Information Studies Faculty, Minneapolis Community and Technical College on 12/5/16

While there is neither a back-of-the-book index nor a compiled glossary in this outstanding textbook (key terms are defined, however, throughout the chapters), one cannot deny its comprehensiveness. In fact, this text covers so much ground it is... read more

While there is neither a back-of-the-book index nor a compiled glossary in this outstanding textbook (key terms are defined, however, throughout the chapters), one cannot deny its comprehensiveness. In fact, this text covers so much ground it is unlikely to be used in its entirety for any single college course. Information literacy and research skills courses will find the first eight chapters to be a robust introduction to their subject matter, replete with interactive activities and auto-graded assessments. Composition courses engaged in research-based writing will likely work through the first eight chapters selectively, but then dwell on chapters nine and ten on argument formation and writing. Such courses may also benefit from the excellent chapter thirteen on Joseph Bizup's BEAM method of deploying research sources in scholarly communication. Chapters eleven and twelve on copyright and fair use, respectively, are likely to be used only by advanced undergraduates, faculty, and professional librarians, but they do serve as a handy reference nonetheless.

All of the chapters of this textbook contain authoritative and accurate information, in line with national information literacy standards and sound pedagogical methods for composition and critical thinking. The only section of the text I took issue with was the "Fact or Opinion" part of the second chapter, where the authors try to distinguish between fact, opinion, subjective information, and objective information. The authors' attempt results in claims like "the death penalty is wrong" being rendered as opinions, while claims like "women should stock up on calcium to ensure strong bones" are judged to be subjective information. Facts and objective information are superior, on this way of thinking, because they are the result of research studies, particularly empirical, quantitative ones.

I suspect that this way of drawing the distinction would do little to challenge the naive relativism most undergraduates bring to the classroom. (How many of us, when analyzing a text with beginning undergraduates, have had to entertain the question "Isn't that just the author's opinion though?") A better approach would be to talk about claims that are empirically justified (facts), claims that are justified, but not empirically (value judgments - "x is wrong", prescriptive claims - "women should do x"), and claims that are not adequately justified by any means (opinions). In this way, answering a research question like "Is the death penalty unjust?" is not merely an exercise in subjective opinion-making, but rather an exploration of reasoned argumentation, only some of which may be empirical or based on research studies.

The text is current and will likely be so for some time. Examples, activities, and tips are marked off from the main chapter prose, so will be easy to refresh when necessary.

There is no lack of technical terms in the world of information studies, but this textbook does a fine job of providing definitions where appropriate in each chapter. Concepts and methods are explained in context, and illustrative, easy-to-follow examples adorn each chapter.

The only area of the text that falls a little short on clarity is the interactive activities. These are usually multiple choice or matching questions, but some of the word choice in questions left this reader confused, and in some cases the instructions could have been more explicit.

Being authored by committee, we might expect this textbook to suffer in the consistency category. Yet it does not, thanks again to the fine editing job by Cheryl Lowry. Perhaps the book's provenance as a series of online tutorials put together by librarians and faculty at OSU is partly responsible for this.

As the authors suggest on the first page, the research process isn't always linear. So reading a text modeled on the research process oughtn't to be a straightforward chapter-by-chapter march either. Consequently, faculty and students can comfortably read this text selectively and skip chapters as needed. For the most holistic understanding of the research process, however, it would be sensible to work through at least chapters one through eight in their entirety.

I appreciate how the text's organization mirrors the research process itself. The first chapter takes on research questions, exactly where student researchers need to begin their projects. Subsequent chapters explore types of information sources, how to find and evaluate them, and finally how to deploy them in a well-argued scholarly product. The writing in each chapter is clear and crisp, with important concepts amplified by colorful visualizations.

As mentioned above, the chapters on copyright and fair use which occur near the end of the book feel like a logical interruption to the book's flow, and they might well fit more comfortably as appendices for occasional reference by advanced undergraduates, faculty, and librarians.

The "look and feel" of this textbook is clean and very intuitive to navigate through. The design strikes a pleasing balance between prose, graphics, and special formatting features like the explanatory, grey-background "TIPS" found in each chapter. Subheadings, bulleted and ordered lists, and judicious font choices make the text easy to read in all its online file formats.

One weakness of the interface is that several of the linked activities point to OSU Libraries' resources, thus requiring OSU authentication to be accessed. While it is understandable that the authors wanted to include their libraries' proprietary information sources in the activities - these are the sources their students and faculty will be using in actual practice, after all - this obviously makes this text less of an "open" textbook. Those outside of the OSU community who would like to adopt this textbook will therefore have to come up with their own replacement activities in such cases, or do without.

A few of the links in the text did lead me to a curious OSU server error message: "Error: Unknown export format", but I expect these links will be repaired as they are reported to the authors.

This textbook has clearly been edited with careful eyes by Cheryl Lowry, as grammatical errors are few to none. The grammatical hygiene of the text can probably also be attributed to its collective authorship - over a dozen librarians and faculty of the Ohio State University Libraries developed the content, which was born out of a series of online tutorials.

This textbook is culturally relevant in its use of examples and depictions of college students.

This text is a substantial contribution to the open textbook movement, and its quality easily meets or exceeds anything comparable in the commercial publishing arena. Highly recommended.

Reviewed by Kelly McKenna, Assistant Professor, Colorado State University on 12/5/16

The book provides a thorough introduction and how to regarding sources in academic writing. With the exception of the first chapter on writing research questions, the rest of the book is focused on sources, which is relevant for any type of... read more

The book provides a thorough introduction and how to regarding sources in academic writing. With the exception of the first chapter on writing research questions, the rest of the book is focused on sources, which is relevant for any type of academic writing not just research papers. The information is relevant across disciplines and readable to a wide audience. It is clearly written for and geared towards undergraduate students, particularly from Ohio State University. The index is detailed making it easy to locate specific information and includes hyperlinks for clear navigation. A slightly altered index format would make the chapter topics more readily available and accessed. All subjects and chapters are aligned rather than clearly indicating each of the chapters found within the text.

Content throughout the book is accurate and clearly written. There does not appear to bias in reading the material. The book includes numerous resources linked throughout the text, however some are no longer active resulting in error messages.

Due to the significant number of links throughout the book, it is likely updates will be necessary on a consistent basis. These links are extremely beneficial, so ensuring they are accurate and up to date is essential to the content of this book. Much of the book reads as a "how to" regarding sources, so although practices for scholarly writing will likely not become obsolete the sources and technology used to locate the sources will evolve.

The informal tone of the text is engaging and applicable for the intended audience. The writers are aware of their audience, avoiding technical jargon. Also, throughout the book they provide numerous examples, resources, activities, and tips to provide insight and relevancy to students.

The structure of the book is clear and well organized with each chapter providing scaffolding for the next. Although the text is internally consistent regarding terminology there are formatting differences between and within some chapters. Blue boxes throughout the text contain tips, examples, answers, etc. Organization, readability, and consistency could be improved if these were constant throughout the text similar to the presentation of activities in the text.

Sections of the book could be easily assigned and read in isolation. Subsections of material are clearly marked and chapters are presented in organized fashion with clear delineation between segments. The inclusion of numerous activities, examples, resources, and tips improve modularity.

The book is created as a tool for students completing academic writing and follows this course. Topics contained in the book are presented in a clear and logical structure. As mentioned above, with exception of the first chapter, the material is relevant to all undergraduate academic writing, not just research.

The layout and display work well as a PDF or electronic book. Numerous visuals are included throughout and are free of distortion or other distracting or confusing issues. As mentioned above, the index could be improved by clearly articulating the subheadings as within a chapter.

The book contains minimal to no grammatical errors.

The book is not culturally insensitive or offensive in any way.

Some sections of the book are specific to Ohio State University potentially limiting its relevancy and audience in specific chapters or sections.

Table of Contents

• 1. Research Questions
• 2. Types of Sources
• 3. Sources and Information Needs
• 4. Precision Searching
• 5. Search Tools
• 6. Evaluating Sources
• 7. Ethical Use of Sources
• 8. How to Cite Sources
• 9. Making an Argument
• 10. Writing Tips
• 11. Copyright Basics
• 12. Fair Use
• 13. Roles of Research Sources

Ancillary Material

About the book.

Choosing & Using Sources presents a process for academic research and writing, from formulating your research question to selecting good information and using it effectively in your research assignments. Additional chapters cover understanding types of sources, searching for information, and avoiding plagiarism. Each chapter includes self-quizzes and activities to reinforce core concepts and help you apply them. There are also appendices for quick reference on search tools, copyright basics, and fair use.

What experts are saying about Choosing & Using Sources: A Guide to Academic Research :

“…a really fantastic contribution that offers a much needed broadened perspective on the process of research, and is packed to the brim with all kinds of resources and advice on how to effectively use them. The chapter on plagiarism is really excellent, and the chapter on searching for sources is utterly brilliant.”

– Chris Manion, PhD Coordinator of Writing Across the Curriculum at Ohio State University

“… an excellent resource for students, with engaging content, graphics, and examples—very compelling. The coverage of copyright is outstanding.”

– J. Craig Gibson Co-chair of ACRL's Task Force on Information Literacy Competency Standards for Higher Education

About the Contributors

Cheryl Lowry , training and education specialist, Ohio State University Libraries.

Contribute to this Page

Reference management. Clean and simple.

How can I find credible sources?

Sources that are up-to-date

Research papers, books, and articles that are written by well-respected authors, sources that you find at your university's library, sources from online scholarly databases, government websites, sources from newspapers, sources from social networks, blogs, and sites like youtube or vimeo, frequently asked questions about credible sources, related articles.

When writing a research paper, it is crucial to use and cite only credible sources . But what makes a source credible? And how and where can you find credible sources? Below are 7 suggestions on how to search and find credible sources:

Make sure that the sources you use are not too old or out of date. There might be a more recent paper with new and better insights on your topic than the one from 10 years ago.

If an author has a good reputation and is well-known in their field, it is highly likely that the source can be trusted.

In general, sources that you find at your university's library are credible, be it books, scholarly journals, articles, music recordings or DVD's. But be aware that your university's library can also have popular media, which may not be a credible source of information.

Online library databases are probably one of the best sources of articles from scholarly journals to which you will have access. Your library will most likely be subscribed to multiple online databases and provide information on how to access them. Credible online scholarly databases are also:

• Web of Science

Websites that end with .gov, .edu, .ac, are generally considered credible sources. Examples of reliable websites are:

• Science.gov
• The National Bureau of Economic Research
• UK Office for National Statistics
• US Census Bureau

More caution is required when considering using news articles, as the reliability of news sources available online varies significantly. Good sources that can generally be trusted are, for example:

• The Economist
• The New York Times
• The Wall Street Journal

With sources like social networks, blogs , etc., it really depends. They may or may not be highly biased, insufficiently researched, and not well written. These sources should be checked thoroughly before being used in an academic paper.

A credible source is usually written by authors with a good reputation, it is up-to-date, and can be accessed through your university's library.

A credible source is defined as an unbiased and supported academic reference, written by well-known researchers.

Some examples of credible sources are research articles from any of the following journals:

Yes! Academic writing requires you to use credible sources only.

The benefit of using credible sources is having a legitimate academic paper, based on real references supporting your arguments, which will ultimately translate into academic prestige.

• Library Home
• Research Guides

Writing a Research Paper

• Evaluate Sources

Library Research Guide

• Choose Your Topic
• Organize Your Information
• Draft Your Paper
• Revise, Review, Refine

How Will This Help Me?

Evaluating your sources will help you:

• Determine the credibility of information
• Rule out questionable information
• Check for bias in your sources

In general, websites are hosted in domains that tell you what type of site it is.

• .com = commercial
• .net = network provider
• .org = organization
• .edu = education
• .mil = military
• .gov = U.S. government

Commercial sites want to persuade you to buy something, and organizations may want to persuade you to see an issue from a particular viewpoint. 

Useful information can be found on all kinds of sites, but you must consider carefully whether the source is useful for your purpose and for your audience.

Content Farms

Content farms are websites that exist to host ads. They post about popular web searches to try to drive traffic to their sites. They are rarely good sources for research.

• Web’s “Content Farms” Grow Audiences For Ads This article by Zoe Chace at National Public Radio describes the ways How To sites try to drive more traffic to their sites to see the ads they host.

Fact Checking

Fact checking can help you verify the reliability of a source. The following sites may not have all the answers, but they can help you look into the sources for statements made in U.S. politics.

• FactCheck.org This site monitors the accuracy of statements made in speeches, debates, interviews, and more and links to sources so readers can see the information for themselves. The site is a project of the Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania.
• PolitiFact This resource evaluates the accuracy of statements made by elected officials, lobbyists, and special interest groups and provides sources for their evaluations. PolitiFact is currently run by the nonprofit Poynter Institute for Media Studies.

Evaluate Sources With the Big 5 Criteria

The Big 5 Criteria can help you evaluate your sources for credibility:

• Currency: Check the publication date and determine whether it is sufficiently current for your topic.
• Coverage (relevance): Consider whether the source is relevant to your research and whether it covers the topic adequately for your needs.
• Authority: Discover the credentials of the authors of the source and determine their level of expertise and knowledge about the subject.
• Accuracy: Consider whether the source presents accurate information and whether you can verify that information. 
• Objectivity (purpose): Think about the author's purpose in creating the source and consider how that affects its usefulness to your research. 

Evaluate Sources With the CRAAP Test

Another way to evaluate your sources is the CRAAP Test, which means evaluating the following qualities of your sources:

This video (2:17) from Western Libraries explains the CRAAP Test. 

Video transcript

Evaluating Sources ( Western Libraries ) CC BY-NC-ND 3.0

Evaluate Websites

Evaluating websites follows the same process as for other sources, but finding the information you need to make an assessment can be more challenging with websites. The following guidelines can help you decide if a website is a good choice for a source for your paper. 

• Currency . A useful site is updated regularly and lets visitors know when content was published on the site. Can you tell when the site was last updated? Can you see when the content you need was added? Does the site show signs of not being maintained (broken links, out-of-date information, etc.)?
• Relevance . Think about the target audience for the site. Is it appropriate for you or your paper's audience?
• Authority . Look for an About Us link or something similar to learn about the site's creator. The more you know about the credentials and mission of a site's creators, as well as their sources of information, the better idea you will have about the site's quality. 
• Accuracy. Does the site present references or links to the sources of information it presents? Can you locate these sources so that you can read and interpret the information yourself?
• Purpose. Consider the reason why the site was created. Can you detect any bias? Does the site use emotional language? Is the site trying to persuade you about something? 

Identify Political Perspective

News outlets, think tanks, organizations, and individual authors can present information from a particular political perspective. Consider this fact to help determine whether sources are useful for your paper. 

Check a news outlet's website, usually under About Us or Contact Us , for information about their reporters and authors. For example, USA Today has the USA Today Reporter Index , and the LA Times has an Editorial & Newsroom Contacts . Reading a profile or bio for a reporter or looking at other articles by the author may tell you whether that person favors a particular viewpoint. 

If a particular organization is mentioned in an article, learn more about the organization to identify potential biases. Think tanks and other associations usually exist for a reason. Searching news articles about the organization can help you determine their political leaning. 

Bias is not always bad, but you must be aware of it. Knowing the perspective of a source helps contextualize the information presented. 

• << Previous: Databases
• Next: Organize Your Information >>
• Last Updated: Feb 27, 2024 1:56 PM
• URL: https://guides.lib.k-state.edu/writingresearchpaper

K-State Libraries

1117 Mid-Campus Drive North, Manhattan, KS 66506

785-532-3014 | [email protected]

• Statements and Disclosures
• Accessibility
• © Kansas State University

• Spartanburg Community College Library
• SCC Research Guides

Evaluating Sources

• What Makes a Credible Source?

You may have heard in your courses that you need to use credible sources for your assignments, but how do you know if a source is credible for not?

There are many factors for what makes a source credible. The most important factors to keep in mind is to find sources that are factual and appropriate for a college-level paper.

A factual  source is one that includes information that is based on research and other evidence.

An appropriate source is one that would be acceptable to use for a college-level paper. 

Always Keep Your Thesis Statement in Mind

You spend the entirety of your research paper proving your thesis statement. All of your sources should help strengthen your argument and prove your thesis. Don't just choose sources for the sake of choosing sources.

For more information about creating a thesis statement, check out the Library's Choosing a Research Topic guide .

• << Previous: Home
• Next: Scholarly Sources vs. Popular Sources >>
• Scholarly Sources vs. Popular Sources
• Evaluation Criteria
• Domain Endings
• Evaluating Sources with Lateral Reading
• Evaluating Websites Exercises
• Helpful Resources

Questions? Ask a Librarian

• Last Updated: Jul 19, 2024 1:21 PM
• URL: https://libguides.sccsc.edu/evaluatingsources

Giles Campus | 864.592.4764 | Toll Free 866.542.2779 | Contact Us

Copyright © 2024 Spartanburg Community College. All rights reserved.

Info for Library Staff | Guide Search

Return to SCC Website

Purdue Online Writing Lab Purdue OWL® College of Liberal Arts

Types of Sources

Welcome to the Purdue OWL

This page is brought to you by the OWL at Purdue University. When printing this page, you must include the entire legal notice.

Copyright ©1995-2018 by The Writing Lab & The OWL at Purdue and Purdue University. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, reproduced, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed without permission. Use of this site constitutes acceptance of our terms and conditions of fair use.

This section lists the types of sources most frequently used in academic research and describes the sort of information that each commonly offers.

Print Sources

Books and Textbooks:  Odds are that at least one book has been written about virtually any research topic you can imagine (and if not, your research could represent the first steps toward a best-selling publication that addresses the gap!). Because of the time it takes to publish a book, books usually contain more dated information than will be found in journals and newspapers. However, because they are usually much longer, they can often cover topics in greater depth than more up-to-date sources.

Newspapers:  Newspapers contain very up-to-date information by covering the latest events and trends. Newspapers publish both factual information and opinion-based articles. However, due to journalistic standards of objectivity, news reporting will not always take a “big picture” approach or contain information about larger trends, instead opting to focus mainly on the facts relevant to the specifics of the story. This is exacerbated by the rapid publication cycles most newspapers undergo: new editions must come out frequently, so long, in-depth investigations tend to be rarer than simple fact-reporting pieces.

Academic and Trade Journals:  Academic and trade journals contain the most up-to-date information and research in industry, business, and academia. Journal articles come in several forms, including literature reviews that overview current and past research, articles on theories and history, and articles on specific processes or research. While a well-regarded journal represents the cutting-edge knowledge of experts in a particular field, journal articles can often be difficult for non-experts to read, as they tend to incorporate lots of technical jargon and are not written to be engaging or entertaining.

Government Reports and Legal Documents:  The government regularly releases information intended for internal and/or public use. These types of documents can be excellent sources of information due to their regularity, dependability, and thoroughness. An example of a government report would be any of the reports the U.S. Census Bureau publishes from census data. Note that most government reports and legal documents can now be accessed online.

Press Releases and Advertising:  Companies and special interest groups produce texts to help persuade readers to act in some way or inform the public about some new development. While the information they provide can be accurate, approach them with caution, as these texts' publishers may have vested interests in highlighting particular facts or viewpoints.

Flyers, Pamphlets, Leaflets:  While some flyers or pamphlets are created by reputable sources, because of the ease with which they can be created, many less-than-reputable sources also produce these. Pamphlets and leaflets can be useful for quick reference or very general information, but beware of pamphlets that spread propaganda or misleading information.

Digital and Electronic Sources

Multimedia:  Printed material is certainly not the only option for finding research. You might also consider using sources such as radio and television broadcasts, interactive talks, and recorded public meetings. Though we often go online to find this sort of information today, libraries and archives offer a wealth of nondigitized media or media that is not available online. 

Websites:  Most of the information on the Internet is distributed via websites. Websites vary widely in terms of the quality of information they offer. For more information, visit the OWL's page on evaluating digital sources.

Blogs and personal websites:  Blogs and personal sites vary widely in their validity as sources for serious research. For example, many prestigious journalists and public figures may have blogs, which may be more credible than most amateur or personal blogs. Note, however, that there are very few standards for impartiality or accuracy when it comes to what can be published on personal sites.

Social media pages and message boards:  These types of sources exist for all kinds of disciplines, both in and outside of the university. Some may be useful, depending on the topic you are studying, but, just like personal websites, the information found on social media or message boards is not always credible.

• Follow us on Facebook
• Follow us on Twitter
• Criminal Justice
• Environment
• Politics & Government
• Race & Gender

Expert Commentary

Research strategy guide for finding quality, credible sources

Strategies for finding academic studies and other information you need to give your stories authority and depth

Republish this article

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License .

by Keely Wilczek, The Journalist's Resource May 20, 2011

This <a target="_blank" href="https://journalistsresource.org/home/research-strategy-guide/">article</a> first appeared on <a target="_blank" href="https://journalistsresource.org">The Journalist's Resource</a> and is republished here under a Creative Commons license.<img src="https://journalistsresource.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/cropped-jr-favicon-150x150.png" style="width:1em;height:1em;margin-left:10px;">

Knowing how to conduct deeper research efficiently and effectively is a critical skill for journalists — especially in the information age. It is, like other facets of the profession such as interviewing, a matter of practice and establishing good habits. And once you find a successful routine for information-gathering, it will pay dividends time and again.

Journalists need to be able to do many kinds of research. This article focuses on creating a research strategy that will help you find academic studies and related scholarly information. These sources can, among other things, give your stories extra authority and depth — and thereby distinguish your work. You can see examples of such studies — and find many relevant ones for your stories — by searching the Journalist’s Resource database . But that is just a representative sample of what exists in the research world.

The first step is to create a plan for seeking the information you need. This requires you to take time initially and to proceed with care, but it will ultimately pay off in better results. The research strategy covered in this article involves the following steps:

Get organized

Articulate your topic, locate background information.

• Identify your information needs

List keywords and concepts for search engines and databases

Consider the scope of your topic, conduct your searches, evaluate the information sources you found, analyze and adjust your research strategy.

Being organized is an essential part of effective research strategy. You should create a record of your strategy and your searches. This will prevent you from repeating searches in the same resources and from continuing to use ineffective terms. It will also help you assess the success or failure of your research strategy as you go through the process. You also may want to consider tracking and organizing citations and links in bibliographic software such as Zotero . (See this helpful resource guide about using Zotero.)

Next, write out your topic in a clear and concise manner. Good research starts with a specific focus.

For example, let’s say you are writing a story about the long-range health effects of the explosion at the Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant based on a study published in Environmental Health Perspectives titled, “The Chernobyl Accident 20 Years On: An Assessment of the Health Consequences and the International Response.” (The study is summarized in Journalist’s Resource here .)

A statement of your topic might be, “Twenty years after the Chernobyl disaster, scientists are still learning the affects of the accident on the health of those who lived in the surrounding area and their descendants.”

If you have a good understanding of the Chernobyl disaster, proceed to the next step, “Identify the information you need.” If not, it’s time to gather background information. This will supply you with the whos and the whens of the topic. It will also provide you with a broader context as well as the important terminology.

Excellent sources of background information are subject-specific encyclopedias and dictionaries, books, and scholarly articles, and organizations’ websites. You should always consult more than one source so you can compare for accuracy and bias.

For your story about Chernobyl, you might want to consult some of the following sources:

• Frequently Asked Chernobyl Questions , International Atomic Agency
• Chernobyl Accident 1986 , World Nuclear Association
• Chernobyl: Consequences of the Catastrophe for People and the Environment , New York Academy of Sciences, 2009.
• “Chernobyl Disaster,” Encyclopedia Britannica, last updated 2013.

Identify the information you need

What information do you need to write your story? One way to determine this is to turn your overall topic into a list of questions to be answered. This will help you identify the type and level of information you need. Some possible questions on consequences of the Chernobyl accident are:

• What are the proven health effects?
• What are some theorized health effects?
• Is there controversy about any of these studies?
• What geographic area is being studied?
• What are the demographic characteristics of the population being studied?
• Was there anything that could have been done at the time to mitigate these effects?

Looking at these questions, it appears that scientific studies and scholarly articles about those studies, demographic data, disaster response analysis, and government documents and publications from the Soviet Union and Ukraine would be needed.

Now you need to determine what words you will use to enter in the search boxes within resources. One way to begin is to extract the most important words and phrases from the questions produced in the previous step. Next, think about alternative words and phrases that you might use. Always keep in mind that different people may write or talk about the same topic in different ways. Important concepts can referred to differently or be spelled differently depending on country of origin or field of study.

For the Chernobyl health story, some search keyword options are: “Chernobyl,” “Chornobyl”; “disaster,” “catastrophe,” “explosion”; “health,” “disease,” “illness,” “medical conditions”; “genetic mutation,” “gene mutation,” “germ-line mutation,” “hereditary disease.” Used in different combinations, these can unearth a wide variety of resources.

Next you should identify the scope of your topic and any limitations it puts on your searches. Some examples of limitations are language, publication date, and publication type. Every database and search engine will have its own rules so you may need to click on an advanced search option in order to input these limitations.

It is finally time to start looking for information but identifying which resources to use is not always easy to do. First, if you are part of an organization, find out what, if any, resources you have access to through a subscription. Examples of subscription resources are LexisNexis and JSTOR. If your organization does not provide subscription resources, find out if you can get access to these sources through your local library. Should you not have access to any subscription resources appropriate for your topic, look at some of the many useful free resources on the internet.

Here are some examples of sources for free information:

• PLoS , Public Library of Science
• Google Scholar
• SSRN , Social Science Research Network
• FDsys , U.S. Government documents and publications
• World Development Indicators , World Bank
• Pubmed , service of the U.S. National Library of Medicine

More quality sites, and search tips, are here among the other research articles at Journalist’s Resource.

As you only want information from the most reliable and suitable sources, you should always evaluate your results. In doing this, you can apply journalism’s Five W’s (and One H):

• Who : Who is the author and what are his/her credentials in this topic?
• What: Is the material primary or secondary in nature?
• Where: Is the publisher or organization behind the source considered reputable? Does the website appear legitimate?
• When: Is the source current or does it cover the right time period for your topic?
• Why: Is the opinion or bias of the author apparent and can it be taken into account?
• How: Is the source written at the right level for your needs? Is the research well-documented?

Were you able to locate the information you needed? If not, now it is time to analyze why that happened. Perhaps there are better resources or different keywords and concepts you could have tried. Additional background information might supply you with other terminology to use. It is also possible that the information you need is just not available in the way you need it and it may be necessary to consult others for assistance like an expert in the topic or a professional librarian.

Keely Wilczek is a research librarian at the Harvard Kennedy School. Tags: training

About The Author

Keely Wilczek

• Our Mission

Teaching Students How to Identify Credible Sources

Teachers can guide students toward a clear understanding of the factors that make a particular source of information reliable or not.

Growing up in the early 1990s, I caught the tail end of the age of encyclopedias. If my teacher gave me a research assignment on the causes of the Cold War, I’d pull volume C off the shelf, flip through the index to find the right page, and read through pages of small-font text until I found my answers. Because the Encyclopedia Britannica employed a team of full-time editors, the information I sifted through could largely be trusted.

In 2012, when I gave my students the same research assignment, they turned to Wikipedia, where all of the information they needed was on a single webpage in front of them. At the bottom of the Wikipedia page were sources and links directing them to mostly trusted information.

How Do We Know What’s Accurate? 

Today, in 2023, students can write their prompt into ChatGPT, and in seconds, the artificial intelligence (AI) will compile all of the information they need, pulling from potentially thousands of sources across the internet without citing a single one of them. The information is just given, and while it’s wild and impressive that this technology can complete this task, it makes no promises that the information is valid or reliable. You just have to trust that the program is accurate.

But what if the information is inaccurate? What if the AI pulls from biased sources? What if it leaves out key points? What if the sources it pulls from are written by people without the authority to write and speak on the subject? My guess is that the immediate effect will be a bunch of essays that get flagged for using AI to write them or at least get marked down for missing key points and not citing sources. 

However, the much bigger problem is the growing threat of misinformation. With the advent of social media, the internet has already become a massive source of misinformation and disinformation. With tools like ChatGPT and Microsoft’s Bing AI chatbot, this problem will likely only grow more and more serious. This is why it’s so essential for educators to incorporate the skill of critically evaluating sources into every research assignment they give. One of the best ways to teach this vital skill is by using the CRAAP Test , first developed by the Meriam Library at California State University, Chico. 

What is the CRAAP Test?

The CRAAP Test is a litmus test to determine whether a source is... well, you know—whether it’s any good or not. The acronym stands for Currency, Relevance, Authority, Accuracy, and Purpose. Teachers can teach students how to evaluate a source by considering the questions associated with each word in the acronym. 

Currency: Is the information timely? Is it out-of-date? Does it matter for what you’re researching? Has the information been updated since it was published?

Relevance: Is the source directly related to your topic? Who is the intended audience? Does it meet the needs of your work?

Authority: Is the author qualified to write on this topic? What are their credentials that make them an expert? 

Accuracy: Is the information supported by evidence? Can you find the information from more than one source? Is the writing professional?

Purpose: What is the purpose of the information? Is it to inform, teach, sell, entertain, or persuade? Is the information presented as fact or opinion?

6 Ways to Teach Students to Use the CRAAP Test

There are a number of ways to teach students how to use the CRAAP Test. You can get started by using one that I created and simply print it out, or you can use a slide show to review each letter of the acronym and instruct students to use it each time they’re selecting a source. However, I think the best learning often happens by doing. 

Try the following activities to have students practice the CRAAP Test before using it authentically in their work. 

1 . Source Showdown. Create a bracket-style competition where sources go head-to-head, and students have students use the CRAAP Test to determine which source is more reliable. Each round, students can debate their choices and defend their reasoning, advancing the winner to the next round.

2. Interactive Game. Create an interactive game using an online platform such as Kahoot or Quizlet where students use the CRAAP Test to evaluate sources. Use a mix of credible and noncredible sources to keep it interesting!

3. Source Scavenger Hunt. Create a scavenger hunt for students where they use Google to search for sources related to a specific topic. Have students use the CRAAP Test to evaluate each source they find and award points for each credible source that they identify.

4. CRAAP Race. Create a list of sources, and have students work in groups to evaluate them. The first group to correctly evaluate all the sources wins.

5. CRAAP Poster. Have students work in groups to create a poster that explains the criteria of the CRAAP Test. They can create the posters digitally or on poster boards and, after presenting them, hang them on the walls of your classroom to use as a reference throughout the school year. 

6. Debate. Assign students a controversial topic, and have them find sources to support their argument. Before the debate, have students evaluate each other’s sources using the CRAAP Test and challenge each other on the credibility of their sources during the debate.

When a Protocol Becomes Practice

Like any good teaching protocol, the objective is for students to become so well-versed in it that they no longer need the specific method when their time in the classroom is complete. When students aren’t writing research papers or finding evidence for a class project, they’ll still know what to look for when evaluating a source. They’ll understand that not everything they see on social media, in the news, or generated from AI is valid or helpful. Through using this litmus test, they’ll always know how to identify what’s valuable information and what isn’t.

Microsoft 365 Life Hacks > Everyday AI > How to prompt AI to find reliable sources for a research paper

How to prompt AI to find reliable sources for a research paper

It can be cumbersome finding reliable sources when writing a research paper. Determining whether a source is reliable can be time-consuming, as you need to confirm a website’s credibility, whether their claims are valid, and more. Learn how to use AI for research to help simplify the sourcing process.

How to use AI for your research paper sources

Research papers require writers to base and organize their claims and thesis on facts. This propels writers to extensively evaluate potential sources and check their credibility, author credentials, and potential bias .

Get the most out of your documents with Word

Elevate your writing and collaborate with others - anywhere, anytime

To save time, AI can help sift through websites to streamline the research process. However, despite its ease, it’s critical to know how to effectively communicate to AI of what constitutes a reliable source. Remember: AI can make mistakes, and without explicit instructions, the sources provided may be unreliable.

To prompt AI to help find reliable sources, try the following:

Find thematically similar sources

Credible sources typically have a bibliography and in-text citations that serve as building blocks. You can request the AI platform to comb through credible sources for additional citations and related literature. This can considerably help simplify the research process by providing you with a suggested list of credible sources. Furthermore, it lends credibility to your work, as you’re citing a lineage of respected authors within your field of interest. Ask it to exclusively provide sources with an extensive bibliography to find new tangents to jump from in your research journey.

Provide information on authors’ credentials

A key component of a source’s credibility is the author’s credentials. Authors should be experts in their field—they need to have the career and academic experience to validate themselves. After you compile a list of sources, you can request AI to detail an author’s career and credentials to help you determine if they’re reliable. This may also illuminate potential biases in their work that stem from their personal history. It’s important to keep this information in mind as you consider what sources to include as their claims may not be entirely accurate.

Supply relevant sources to a research question

Communicate your research question and request relevant sources for evidence. AI tools review large datasets to compile information swiftly. You can use it to request sources that are relevant to answering your question, which can shorten the research process. You should still independently confirm their credibility to ensure they’re appropriate for your paper.

Summarize key points from a source

Are you trying to synthesize information from a verbose article or paper? AI can help summarize key points to make it easier to understand. Highlight relevant sections in your document and copy the passage into your AI tool. You can request it to clarify specific sections, communicate main ideas, extrapolate on certain points, and more.

Create citations

Need help with formatting some citations from a research article? Ask AI to help format your research sources in your preferred style, whether it’s MLA, Chicago Style, or APA.

For more ways AI can help improve your writing and research process, learn more everyday AI tips.

Get started with Microsoft 365

It’s the Office you know, plus the tools to help you work better together, so you can get more done—anytime, anywhere.

Topics in this article

More articles like this one.

Navigating the legal aspects of AI

Understand novel legal questions and laws in the AI-technology landscape. Navigate AI laws, legality, legal concerns to effectively utilize this technology.

Maximize your morning routine with AI help

Create a morning routine that gives you the motivation and energy to conquer the day. Complete your tasks and maximize your morning routine with the assistance of AI.

Making memories: AI and the future of photography

AI is quickly changing the photography world and how we edit and capture our photos. Find out more about AI’s role in the future of photography.

How AI can help you create a fitness plan

Create a fitness training plan with the assistance of AI. Customize workout plans, track your performance, and find healthy recipes to help you reach your fitness goals.

Everything you need to achieve more in less time

Get powerful productivity and security apps with Microsoft 365

Explore Other Categories

Have a language expert improve your writing

Run a free plagiarism check in 10 minutes, generate accurate citations for free.

• Knowledge Base
• Working with sources
• Types of Sources Explained | Examples & Tips

Types of Sources Explained | Examples & Tips

Published on May 19, 2022 by Eoghan Ryan . Revised on May 31, 2023.

Throughout the research process , you’ll likely use various types of sources . The source types commonly used in academic writing include:

Academic journals

• Encyclopedias

Table of contents

Primary, secondary, and tertiary sources, other interesting articles, frequently asked questions about types of sources.

Academic journals are the most up-to-date sources in academia. They’re typically published multiple times a year and contain cutting-edge research. Consult academic journals to find the most current debates and research topics in your field.

There are many kinds of journal articles, including:

• Original research articles: These publish original data ( primary sources )
• Theoretical articles: These contribute to the theoretical foundations of a field.
• Review articles: These summarize the current state of the field.

Credible journals use peer review . This means that experts in the field assess the quality and credibility of an article before it is published. Journal articles include a full bibliography and use scholarly or technical language.

Academic journals are usually published online, and sometimes also in print. Consult your institution’s library to find out what academic journals they provide access to.

  Learn how to cite a journal article

Scribbr Citation Checker New

The AI-powered Citation Checker helps you avoid common mistakes such as:

• Missing commas and periods
• Incorrect usage of “et al.”
• Ampersands (&) in narrative citations
• Missing reference entries

Academic books are great sources to use when you need in-depth information on your research or dissertation topic .

They’re typically written by experts and provide an extensive overview and analysis of a specific topic. They can be written by a single author or by multiple authors contributing individual chapters (often overseen by a general editor).

Books published by respected academic publishing houses and university presses are typically considered trustworthy sources. Academic books usually include a full bibliography and use scholarly or technical language. Books written for more general audiences are less relevant in an academic context.

Books can be accessed online or in print. Your institution’s library will likely contain access to a wide selection of each.

Learn how to cite a book

Websites are great sources for preliminary research and can help you to learn more about a topic you’re new to.

However, they are not always credible sources . Many websites don’t provide the author’s name, so it can be hard to tell if they’re an expert. Websites often don’t cite their sources, and they typically don’t subject their content to peer review.

For these reasons, you should carefully consider whether any web sources you use are appropriate to cite or not. Some websites are more credible than others. Look for DOIs or trusted domain extensions:

• URLs that end with .edu are specifically educational resources.
• URLs that end with .gov are government-related

Both of these are typically considered trustworthy.

Learn how to cite a website

Newspapers can be valuable sources, providing insights on current or past events and trends.

However, news articles are not always reliable and may be written from a biased perspective or with the intention of promoting a political agenda. News articles usually do not cite their sources and are written for a popular, rather than academic, audience.

Nevertheless, newspapers can help when you need information on recent topics or events that have not been the subject of in-depth academic study. Archives of older newspapers can also be useful sources for historical research.

Newspapers are published in both digital and print form. Consult your institution’s library to find out what newspaper archives they provide access to.

Learn how to cite a newspaper article

Don't submit your assignments before you do this

The academic proofreading tool has been trained on 1000s of academic texts. Making it the most accurate and reliable proofreading tool for students. Free citation check included.

Try for free

Encyclopedias are reference works that contain summaries or overviews of topics rather than original insights. These overviews are presented in alphabetical order.

Although they’re often written by experts, encyclopedia entries are not typically attributed to a single author and don’t provide the specialized knowledge expected of scholarly sources. As a result, they’re best used as sources of background information at the beginning of your research. You can then expand your knowledge by consulting more academic sources.

Encyclopedias can be general or subject-specific:

• General encyclopedias contain entries on diverse topics.
• Subject encyclopedias focus on a particular field and contain entries specific to that field (e.g., Western philosophy or molecular biology).

They can be found online (including crowdsourced encyclopedias like Wikipedia) or in print form.

Learn how to cite Wikipedia

Every source you use will be either a:

• Primary source : The source provides direct evidence about your topic (e.g., a news article).
• Secondary source : The source provides an interpretation or commentary on primary sources (e.g., a journal article).
• Tertiary source : The source summarizes or consolidates primary and secondary sources but does not provide additional analysis or insights (e.g., an encyclopedia).

Tertiary sources are often used for broad overviews at the beginning of a research project. Further along, you might look for primary and secondary sources that you can use to help formulate your position.

How each source is categorized depends on the topic of research and how you use the source.

If you want to know more about ChatGPT, AI tools , citation , and plagiarism , make sure to check out some of our other articles with explanations and examples.

• ChatGPT vs human editor
• ChatGPT citations
• Is ChatGPT trustworthy?
• Using ChatGPT for your studies
• What is ChatGPT?
• Chicago style
• Paraphrasing

 Plagiarism

• Types of plagiarism
• Self-plagiarism
• Avoiding plagiarism
• Academic integrity
• Consequences of plagiarism
• Common knowledge

There are many types of sources commonly used in research. These include:

• Journal articles

You’ll likely use a variety of these sources throughout the research process , and the kinds of sources you use will depend on your research topic and goals.

Scholarly sources are written by experts in their field and are typically subjected to peer review . They are intended for a scholarly audience, include a full bibliography, and use scholarly or technical language. For these reasons, they are typically considered credible sources .

Popular sources like magazines and news articles are typically written by journalists. These types of sources usually don’t include a bibliography and are written for a popular, rather than academic, audience. They are not always reliable and may be written from a biased or uninformed perspective, but they can still be cited in some contexts.

In academic writing, the sources you cite should be credible and scholarly. Some of the main types of sources used are:

• Academic journals: These are the most up-to-date sources in academia. They are published more frequently than books and provide cutting-edge research.
• Books: These are great sources to use, as they are typically written by experts and provide an extensive overview and analysis of a specific topic.

It is important to find credible sources and use those that you can be sure are sufficiently scholarly .

• Consult your institute’s library to find out what books, journals, research databases, and other types of sources they provide access to.
• Look for books published by respected academic publishing houses and university presses, as these are typically considered trustworthy sources.
• Look for journals that use a peer review process. This means that experts in the field assess the quality and credibility of an article before it is published.

Cite this Scribbr article

If you want to cite this source, you can copy and paste the citation or click the “Cite this Scribbr article” button to automatically add the citation to our free Citation Generator.

Ryan, E. (2023, May 31). Types of Sources Explained | Examples & Tips. Scribbr. Retrieved July 30, 2024, from https://www.scribbr.com/working-with-sources/types-of-sources/

Is this article helpful?

Eoghan Ryan

Other students also liked, primary vs. secondary sources | difference & examples, what are credible sources & how to spot them | examples, types of plagiarism and how to recognize them, get unlimited documents corrected.

✔ Free APA citation check included ✔ Unlimited document corrections ✔ Specialized in correcting academic texts

• Skip to primary navigation
• Skip to main content
• Skip to footer

Elite Editing

You write it. We right it.™

Where to Find Credible Sources for Your Research Paper

Finding credible sources online.

The dreaded research paper can leave many wondering where to go for information. With the Internet being so accessible, it might be tempting to type words into Google and use whatever comes up first. You may get lucky and get great sources, or you may get stuck with less credible sites that leave your professor wondering where you got such information. Learning how to evaluate sources for research paper writing is a key component to your research paper’s success. Here are five tips to help you as you gather your sources:

• Start with a simple search.  Search engines, such as  Google  or  Yahoo! , are great places to start when you’re first reading up on the assigned writing topic.
• Avoid  Wikipedia .  Print and digital encyclopedias, such as  Encyclopedia Britannica  and  InfoPlease.com , are excellent sources from which to gather material. But be careful of sites such as Wikipedia that allow multiple users to edit. Wikipedia is a great jumping-off point in terms of figuring out what to search for, but double-check all of the facts by using credible sources of information.
• Use online scholarly databases  such as  InfoTrac ,  LexisNexis , and  EBSCO , which provide access to the latest research in hundreds of areas.
• Newspapers and magazines  are also rich sources of information about what is happening now. Consider browsing through the  New York Times ,  TIME , and the  Wall Street Journal .
• Don ’ t forget the library.  Often this rich source of information is overlooked because students think it’s more convenient to look subjects up online. The problem with that is you miss out on accidentally stumbling upon a book or magazine that might just be the perfect source for your research paper.
• NEXT: Finding Credible Sources Online Part 2 

Other Resources You Might Like

Grammar 101: “Every Day” vs. “Everyday”

Proofreading

The Power of Proofreading: Part Three

The Power of Proofreading: Part Two

Get elite updates straight to your inbox..

• Content Writing
• Marketing and Sales Enablement
• Program Management
• AI Implementation

Who We Help

• Thought Leaders
• Cybersecurity
• Health Care
• Full-Time Careers
• Freelance Opportunities
• Press and Awards
• Success Stories
• About Elite

In the News

• Elite Creative Makes the Inc. 5000 for the Third Year in a Row

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• NAM Perspect
• v.2021; 2021

Identifying Credible Sources of Health Information in Social Media: Principles and Attributes

Raynard s. kington.

Phillips Academy in Andover

Stacey Arnesen

National library of medicine, wen-ying sylvia chou.

National Cancer Institute

Susan J. Curry

The University of Iowa

David Lazer

Northeastern University

Antonia M. Villarruel

University of Pennsylvania

July 16, 2021

Disclaimer: The views expressed in this paper are those of the authors and not necessarily of the authors’ organizations, the National Academy of Medicine (NAM), the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (the National Academies), or the National Institutes of Health (NIH). The paper is intended to help inform and stimulate discussion. It is not a report of the NAM or the National Academies.

ABSTRACT | Social media is widely used as a source of health information for the general public. The potential for information shared through social media to infl uence health outcomes necessitates action by social media platforms to enhance access and exposure to high-quality, science-based information. This paper summarizes the work of an independent advisory group convened by the National Academy of Medicine that deliberated and gathered information to develop a set of initial principles and attributes that could inform platforms’ identifi cation and possible elevation of credible sources of health information. Using these principles and attributes as a framework, the authors discuss the likelihood of credibility among major categories and types of nonprofi t and government organizations that share health information through social media. The authors also emphasize the need for parallel strategies in addition to source evaluation, including assessment of content, as well as important ethical considerations such as the protection of free speech and individual autonomy. The paper also stresses that, in order to be considered credible themselves, social media platforms should share data with behavioral and public health researchers to understand the eff ects of such policies on both online and offl ine behaviors.

Introduction

People seek, share, and receive health information from a wide variety of sources, such as health care professionals, insurance and pharmaceutical companies, family and friends, media, educational materials, advertisements, and the internet—including social media. Increasing numbers of Americans have turned to internet sources for health and medical information in recent years, with approximately three out of four searching for health information online today, and similar rates among Europeans [ 1 , 2 ]. However, both high- and low-quality health information can be found online, and few social media platforms (SMPs) [a] differentiate between credible and non-credible sources of information. Consequentially, consumers must make their own judgments about how much trust to place in a source and the quality of the information it shares. These judgments are influenced by their level of health and digital literacy, prior knowledge, personal situations, and personal beliefs [ 3 ].

“Misinformation” is that which conflicts with the best scientific evidence available at the time. “Disinformation” describes a “coordinated or deliberate” effort to spread misinformation in order to gain “money, power, or reputation” [ 1 ]. Social media allows both misinformation and disinformation to be disseminated much more rapidly and broadly than ever before [ 4 ]. The ability for people to tailor their preferences on SMPs to see information from only the sources they select raises concerns about “bubbles” or “echo chambers” that could reinforce existing beliefs (although recent research has challenged this notion [ 5 ]). However, consumers do not have to proactively seek information that confirms their beliefs; algorithms used by SMPs and other web platforms often recommend content on the basis of users’ past behaviors and expressed interests, leading to passive or incidental exposure [ 6 ]. In the case of low-quality health information, such reinforcement loops can be harmful.

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has demonstrated the potentially malign outcomes of this aspect of social media. Misinformation about the disease spread through social media and other online forums—often fueled by politicization of scientific information—has considerably harmed the adoption of recommended prevention and control behaviors and has decreased support for vital policies, such as vaccination [ 7 ]. Therefore, SMPs are capable of amplifying misinformation and disinformation in harmful ways, including those that may lead to poor outcomes for individual as well as population health [ 8 ]. The authors believe that these platforms have an important opportunity—and a growing responsibility—to intervene, not only to counteract these harmful trends but also to enhance consumers’ access and exposure to high-quality, science-based health information. Proactive interventions by SMPs are one potential approach, although not a sole solution, to the challenge of “platform governance,” an issue that has been the subject of increasing policy debate [ 9 ].

The tremendous reach of SMPs among broad and diverse audiences affords them unique potential to support health-promoting behaviors amid the COVID-19 pandemic, as well as other current and future health challenges. For example, the two current most popular SMPs used by organizations to share health information—Facebook and YouTube—reach 2.85 billion [ 10 ] and “over 2 billion,” [ 11 ] monthly active users, respectively [b]. This represents a significant portion of the world’s population, estimated by the U.S. Census Bureau to be nearly 7.8 billion people in June 2021 [ 12 ]. Harnessing the power of social media to elevate high-quality information could therefore have a truly trans-formative effect on health and well-being worldwide.

However, determining what constitutes high-quality health information is a complex and multidimensional process. Although SMPs are beginning to pilot strategies to elevate and label high-quality information, there are no public data available to demonstrate what works and no scientific or technical consensus about the most effective approach. Nevertheless, the urgency of ensuring access to high-quality health information necessitates action, even if such action is initially imperfect. The challenge will require collaboration among public and private actors to develop incremental and iterative solutions, with attention to transparency, accountability, and incorporation of feedback from a diverse set of stakeholders.

This paper focuses specifically on the evaluation of sources of health information, rather than content or design (discussed further under “Scope”). The authors offer initial principles and attributes for consideration by SMPs in their efforts to identify credible sources—with the ultimate goal of promoting access to high-quality health information. The guidance in this paper is therefore limited in scope and is offered as a starting point in what should be an ongoing process. This guidance will also need to be regularly revisited and updated according to changes in the online information ecosystem. SMPs should invest in ongoing, rigorous research and analysis of this subject; commit to transparency and continuous quality improvement; and build and sustain collaborations with scientific, health, ethical, and other communities to ensure an effective and accountable approach.

Although this paper is intended to inform the policies of SMPs, organizations that share health information through social media may find the principles and credibility attributes useful in assessing their own approach. Importantly, members of the public might also use this guidance to inform their personal evaluation of sources. Both groups should be engaged by SMPs and others seeking to improve the accessibility of high-quality health information in social media.

In March 2021, the National Academy of Medicine (NAM) launched a project to help identify principles for identifying credible sources of health information in social media, of which this paper is the principal output. Sponsored by YouTube’s Healthcare and Public Health Partnerships arm [c], the project was inspired by the goal of enhancing public access to evidence-based health information during the COVID-19 pandemic, although the issue has relevance beyond the current crisis.

The project involved an independent expert advisory group composed of multi-disciplinary experts in information governance, health information development, public health and health equity, social media and misinformation, and science communication (members of which also authored this paper), a public webinar, a public comment period, and other information-gathering activities. This paper does not constitute official recommendations from the NAM or the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM), nor does it represent an endorsement of any actions taken by YouTube or other SMPs following its publication.

Managing Conflict of Interest

The NAM is an organization whose influence stems in part from its reputation as a credible source of health information. Further, the NAM disseminates this information in part through social media [d]. To minimize conflict of interest (COI), the NAM took steps to ensure the independence and objectivity of the advisory group and this paper. This paper represents the opinions of the authors and does not reflect a consensus position of the NAM, NASEM, or the authors’ organizations. The authors did not receive payment from the NAM, NASEM, or YouTube for their contributions to this paper, and the authors’ declared individual COIs are included in this paper’s back matter. This paper has been revised in response to scientific peer review by individuals who were chosen for their expertise in social media, ethics, health literacy, law, communications, and policy but are unknown to the authors.

Deliberative Sessions

The authors met for four closed, deliberative sessions between March and June 2021. Representatives from YouTube attended the first 60 minutes of the initial session in order to explain the company’s current policies and future goals with regard to elevating high-quality health information and to answer questions from the authors. Representatives from YouTube did not attend any part of the subsequent deliberative sessions. Notes from all three sessions are available to the public on the project webpage: NAM.edu/AuthoritativeHe-althSources .

Information-Gathering Public Webinar

On April 5, 2021, the NAM hosted a public webinar to gather information to inform the authors’ deliberations. The webinar was planned with the input of the authors, and all authors attended. The topics covered included background on YouTube’s goals with regard to elevating credible sources of health information; the health and social consequences of social media misinformation and disinformation; how health information is received at the community level; and unintended consequences of social media content moderation strategies. The session concluded with a question-and-answer session among the authors and presenters (see Box 1 ). The webinar was attended by approximately 400 members of the public. The webinar recording, transcript, slide presentations, and a written summary are available on the project webpage, along with a synthesis of questions and comments submitted by public attendees.

Takeaway Points from the NAM Webinar on “Defining the Authority of Online Providers of Health Information”

• Scientific and medical collaborations with social media companies offer a unique opportunity to share high-quality health information with a broad audience.
• People are resourceful when seeking health information, meaning that they consult many sources and often will not settle for the word of a single, “authoritative” entity.
• High-quality health information must be understandable, engaging, and culturally competent [ a ] to be influential. Health and medical organizations must work hard to gain the trust of people at the community level.
• Inter-science debate and evolving information makes social media content moderation very challenging. For example, during the COVID-19 pandemic, information shared by “authoritative” sources such as the World Health Organization and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention quickly became outdated.
• A perfect solution to this challenge may not exist, but achieving something “better than” the status quo is a worthy goal.

NOTE: Webinar speakers included Garth Graham, director and global head of healthcare and public health partnerships at YouTube; Brendan J. Nyhan, professor of government at Dartmouth College; Lisa Fitzpatrick, founder and CEO of the Grapevine Health; and Zeynep Tufekci, McColl Term Associate Professor, University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill School of Information and Library Science (see https://nam.edu/event/defining-the-authority-of-onlineproviders-of-health-information/ ).

[a] “Cultural competence” refers to the ability to interact effectively with diverse audiences by recognizing and responding to variations in social, cultural, and linguistic needs (see https://psnet.ahrq.gov/perspective/cultural-competence-and-patient-safety#_ednref4 ).

Preliminary Discussion Document and Public Comment Period

The authors created a four-page preliminary discussion document to solicit feedback on the project from interested parties, including researchers, providers of online health information, and members of the public. The document contained background on the project; preliminary definitions and source categories; and ethical, logistical, and public health considerations. The document was posted on the project webpage on April 5, 2021, where it remains available [ 13 ].

The NAM hosted a questionnaire to collect comments on the discussion document between 12:00 pm ET on April 5, 2021, and 11:59 pm ET on April 9, 2021 (see Appendix C ). The comment opportunity was promoted via email to approximately 1,000 individuals who had registered to attend the webinar and/or signed up for the project mailing list, as well as shared through the NAM’s social media channels. In total, the NAM received 49 comments. Fourteen of the commenters provided feedback on behalf of an organization, while the remainder commented as individuals. Three commenters were from Canada, one was from Mexico, one was from Egypt, and the remainder were from the United States. The comments were analyzed, sorted into themes, and summarized by a contractor [e]; this synthesis is available on the project webpage and presented more briefly in Box 2 . The authors reviewed all comments received and considered them in developing this paper.

Key Themes Among Feedback Received During the Public Comment Period

• The need for parallel strategies to supplement elevation of credible health sources, including content analysis; reduction of misinformation; consumer education/efforts to increase health and digital literacy; and efforts to improve the communication skills of credible sources, including a focus on cultural competence [ a ].
• The need to consider the evolving nature of science and health and medical practice; the necessity of experimentation and iteration should not impact perception of a source’s credibility. On the other hand, steps must be taken to increase consumers’ understanding of the limitations of information, particularly primary or preliminary research.
• The importance of conflict of interest disclosures; even the most credible sources have conflicts, and no organization should be exempt from disclosing them.
• The need to protect free speech and personal autonomy; efforts to elevate credible health sources should not amount to censorship of any other sources, and individual consumers should retain the ability to make their own judgments.
• The desire for a simple system by which users can evaluate source credibility, such as a “visual seal of approval” or a “1-5 rating system.”

NOTE: See a detailed summary of comments at https://nam.edu/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/PUBLIC-COMMENT-SYNTHESIS.pdf .

Review of Existing Models for Evaluation of Source Credibility

The authors performed a scan of existing models for evaluating source credibility and/or information quality (see Box 3 and Appendix A ). Major themes that emerge across these models include the importance of independence from profit motivations and bias; rigorous content review processes; transparency and accountability; and mission-driven policies.

Models for Evaluation of Source Credibility

Clinical Practice Guidelines We Can Trust. This 2011 Institute of Medicine consensus report made recommendations for identifying high-quality clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) among the nearly 27,000 then contained in the National Guideline Clearinghouse. The report committee concluded that certifying organizations with trustworthy CPG development procedures, rather than evaluating the content each individual CPG, was a reasonable (although not the only) approach to the challenge.

The CRAP Test. Developed by librarian Molly Beestrum, the CRAP Test is a system for evaluating the credibility of a website according to four major attributes: C urrency/ C redibility, R eliability, A uthority, and P urpose/ P oint of View. Embedded within each of these attributes are questions such as, How recent is the information? Does the website include citations? What are the author’s credentials? Does the author seem to be trying to push an agenda or sell you something? Educator Mike Caulfield has developed an alternative to the CRAP model called SIFT ( S top. I nvestigate the Source. F ind Better Coverage. T race claims, quotes, and media to the original context), which is designed to help “students get better at sorting truth from fiction from everything in between” [ a ].

Health on the Net (HON) Foundation Certification. HON is an international nonprofit organization based in Switzerland. HON certification holds health and medical websites accountable to basic ethical standards in the presentation of information, including sharing information from only trained and qualified professionals, respecting patient and consumer privacy, providing evidence in support claims, and disclosing financial interests, among others. Websites with HON certification earn the right to display a visual seal as an indication of their integrity.

MEDLINE and MedlinePlus (National Library of Medicine [NLM]). MEDLINE is an NLM database with over 27 million references to journal articles in the life sciences. To decide which journals (i.e., article sources) to include, MEDLINE applies a set of criteria including scope and coverage, editorial policies and processes, scientific and methodological rigor, production and administration, and impact. MEDLINE selection also depends on the judgment of an independent Literature Selection Technical Review Committee, a Federal Advisory Committee.

MedlinePlus is an NLM website designed to share health information with the public. MedlinePlus primarily links to other government websites but will consider inclusion of nongovernment websites (i.e., information sources) if they demonstrate a mission to share high-quality health information; display transparency and trustworthiness; provide unbiased content for the purpose of education; and ensure the accessibility of information, among other criteria. MedlinePlus also gives preference to websites that do not host advertisements.

URAC Certification for Health Content Providers and Health Websites. URAC is an accreditor that offers certifications for health information sources that meet standards for disclosures, editorial and content review processes, privacy and security, external linking policies, consumer complaint processes, and more.

NOTE: See Appendix A for more detailed discussions of each of these models.

[a] See https://hapgood.us/2019/06/19/sift-the-four-moves/ .

Given the complexity of the task—including the volume of health information shared through social media and the controversial nature of evolving content moderation policies—the authors limit their guidance to what they believe is a feasible first step toward enhancing access to high-quality health information. Therefore, this paper focuses on the credibility of sources of health information, rather than the information shared by these sources. Source evaluation is a common means of curating a large volume of content because it eliminates the need to evaluate every piece of information individually (although advances in machine learning may soon increase the feasibility of large-scale content evaluation).

However, although a reasonable place to begin, source evaluation cannot yield a complete solution to the challenge of increasing access to high-quality health information in social media. The credibility of a source is, at most, an indicator of information quality and by no means a guarantee. Furthermore, even organizations with strong reputations for credibility are not infallible. For example, the World Health Organization (WHO) and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) were slow to acknowledge the role of airborne transmission in the COVID-19 pandemic, and the CDC recently removed three pieces of guidance related to the virus from its website for failing to adhere to the agency’s scientific standards [ 14 , 15 ]. Therefore, the authors stress that identifying credible sources of information is a starting point only and must be supplemented by ongoing and iterative efforts to assess the quality of information.

The authors further limit their consideration in this paper to government and nonprofit organizations (including nonprofit news sources that share health information), not individuals (e.g., independent physicians with Facebook pages) or for-profit companies. Individuals require separate analysis because they lack the organizational infrastructure that is the basis of the authors’ approach to source evaluation in this paper. For-profits have a unique set of financial interests that, likewise, require a separate assessment.

However, the authors’ decision to omit consideration of individual and for-profit sources from this paper does not reflect a judgment of their credibility. Individuals and for-profits may be highly credible and are influential sources of health information in social media. Therefore, an assessment of their credibility, as well as the quality of the information they share, should be the focus of future analysis. It also should be noted that demarcations between individuals and organizations and between nonprofit and for-profit organizations are not always clear. Many of the principles laid out in this paper can apply to for-profits.

Finally, the authors have limited their present focus to organizations based in the United States, including those that provide information in languages other than English. While some of the guidance in this paper can be applicable to organizations outside the United States, additional research and the engagement of global partners will be needed for this work in the international context.

Terminological precision is critical to this task and was the subject of careful deliberation by the authors. The following are definitions and discussions of the key terms used in this paper.

For the purposes of this paper, the authors present their own definition of credible in the context of sources of online health information: “offering information that is consistent with the best scientific evidence available at the time and employing processes to reduce conflict of interest and promote transparency and accountability.” The principles that inform this definition are explained in the following section.

High-Quality Information

As noted in the Introduction, high-quality information is that which is “science-based” or consistent with the best scientific evidence available at the time. The state of science and knowledge is always evolving, so the marker of time is an important component of this definition. The evolution of knowledge is also the reason that more absolute terms, such as accurate , are less appropriate. Although this paper does not consider information quality directly, increasing access to high-quality information is the goal of the approach under discussion.

Health Information

The authors define health information as content pertaining to health conditions (physical and mental), behaviors affecting health, public health, population health, health care, health policy, or biomedical science.

For the purposes of this paper, a source is an entity that offers health information through one or more social media channels branded to that entity. A channel is a proprietary forum where a source can share content (text, visual, video, or audio) and interact with social media users who choose to “follow” or “subscribe” to that channel, as well as users who discover the content through search engines or SMPs’ “recommended content” algorithms.

Credible Source of Health Information

Building on the definitions and discussion previously mentioned, the authors define credible source of health information as “a source that is likely to offer high-quality information and employ processes to reduce conflict of interest and promote transparency and accountability.” The use of the word “likely” in this definition reinforces the notion that source credibility does not necessarily equate to information quality, yet is still a useful indicator for consumers.

Foundational Principles

On the basis of their information gathering and deliberation, the authors developed the following foundational principles to guide identification of credible sources of health information in social media.

Principle 1: Science-Based

Sources should provide information that is consistent with the best scientific evidence available at the time and meet standards for the creation, review, and presentation of scientific content.

This principle reflects the authors’ conviction that scientific evidence is the only reliable predictor of health outcomes and therefore should be the foundation of health information provided to consumers. There are a number of attributes (e.g., use of citations) that help to indicate whether a source is sharing information that is consistent with the best scientific evidence available at the time, described in the following section.

Principle 2: Objective

Sources should take steps to reduce the influence of financial and other forms of conflict of interest or bias that might compromise or be perceived to compromise the quality of the information they provide.

This principle acknowledges that all sources have COIs or inherent biases. However, in order to be considered credible, sources should strive to separate the presentation of health information from profit motives and other biases (e.g., political). Sources should also disclose conflicts, as noted in the next principle.

Principle 3: Transparent and Accountable

Sources should disclose the limitations of the information they provide, as well as conflicts of interest, content errors, or procedural missteps.

The final principle acknowledges the fallibility of both organizations—which cannot eliminate COI and errors—and science itself. At the frontiers of understanding, scientific knowledge changes over time as more evidence becomes available and as existing evidence is analyzed in new ways. Scientific evidence, no matter how rigorous, can never guarantee a certain outcome for every individual or every context. Furthermore, Black, Indigenous, and People of Color (BIPOC) and other groups, such as LGBTQIA+ individuals and people with disabilities, are underrepresented within organizations traditionally considered authorities in science, meaning that the best available science might not fully reflect their experiences (discussed further in “Structural Bias”).

To maintain credibility, sources must clearly acknowledge the limitations of the information they share so that consumers can reach fully informed conclusions. Fundamentally, this last principle reflects one of the key themes among the public comments the authors received—the importance of protecting the right of individuals to autonomy and independent evaluation of the information they consume and the sources they choose to trust. It also acknowledges sources’ right to freedom of speech [f], but at the same time, requires sources to be fully transparent and provide all the context necessary for consumers to reach an informed judgment. However, protection of free speech and consumer autonomy must be balanced against the harms of misinformation and disinformation, as well as recent anti-science and “post-truth” trends in the media [ 16 ]. “Post-truth” refers to an environment in which scientific evidence is disregarded by some in favor of an alternative set of beliefs [ 17 ].

Credibility Attributes

Using the foundational principles as a scaffold, the authors identified a set of attributes that generally describe credible sources of health information (see Table 1 ). Not every source can display every attribute, but this should not preclude a general assessment of credibility. For example, a professional association may have a lobbying arm, which is counter to one of the attributes under the “objective” principle. However, the same organization might have a research arm that nearly or fully aligns with the attributes under the “science-based” principle. Furthermore, this organization may clearly disclose its lobbying activities to the public and maintain a strict firewall between political messages and health information for the public, thereby aligning with attributes under the “transparent and accountable” principle.

A credible source should demonstrate a preponderance of the attributes listed in Table 1 but should not be required to meet a formal numerical threshold. Although one of the key themes among the public comments that informed this paper was the desire for a simple rating system, the authors believe that such a calculus would be inappropriate given that each attribute is not necessarily of equal weight or importance. Instead, SMPs and consumers of health information could consider these principles and attributes as a framework to inform their own assessments of a source’s credibility. Further, sources of health information could consider using Table 1 as a roadmap to assess and potentially enhance their own credibility.

To avoid perfection paralysis, the authors believe that general alignment with the principles and attributes listed in Table 1 , coupled with full disclosure of any deviations, could serve as a reliable initial signal of a source’s credibility. As noted in the sections that follow, some types of sources are subject to pre-existing, standardized vetting mechanisms that signal such alignment. However, there remain credibility concerns with these source types as a whole. All sources should publicly disclose deviations from the principles and attributes and be subject to other strategies to ensure information quality (described later in this paper).

Identifying Credible Sources of Health Information

Categorization.

A very wide range of U.S. nonprofit or government sources provide health information through social media, including professional societies; health care organizations; public health departments; universities; think tanks; philanthropies; medical journals; grassroots community organizations; state, local, tribal, and territorial government health agencies, and more. The scope and size of these sources varies dramatically. Evaluating the credibility of each one individually, while a worthy eventual goal, is infeasible as a first step. Therefore, just as the evaluation of source credibility (versus information quality) is offered as an entry point into a larger task, the assessment of source categories (versus individual sources) is an initial tactic to assess credibility at scale.

Leveraging Pre-Existing, Standardized Vetting Mechanisms

Several categories of sources are subject to pre-existing, standardized vetting mechanisms that indicate general alignment with the authors’ foundational principles and attributes. Therefore, SMPs could consider sources in these categories as likely to be credible. However, these vetting mechanisms are not an exact match for the principles and attributes and reflect varying degrees of rigor. In addition, there are credibility concerns associated with each of these categories, as noted in the sections that follow. Therefore, sources in these categories should undergo additional vetting by SMPs (and also, perhaps, by independent third parties, as is discussed later), including some form of content review, as they refine their approaches to source evaluation.

Accredited Organizations

Accreditation is a voluntary process by which an organization earns a formal qualification as proof of its ability to meet quality and performance standards set by an accreditor. Although processes vary considerably by accreditor, accreditation is generally an intensive evaluation that involves extensive documentation and a site visit. Accreditation standards are set on the basis of research and evidence that demonstrates which qualities are associated with the highest degree of organizational effectiveness and the best possible outcomes for patients and other beneficiaries.

Because organizations must apply for reaccreditation on a regular basis (e.g., every few years), maintenance of accreditation indicates an ongoing commitment to transparency and accountability. Accreditors provide publicly accessible lists of organizations that have earned accreditation, as well as, in some cases, organizations that have failed to earn or maintain accreditation.

Accreditors themselves engage in continuous quality improvement and are held to a high standard of performance based on their recognition by federal authorities such as the Department of Education. In some cases, accreditors may be sponsored by relevant professional associations, which can suggest policy changes that ensure up-to-date accreditation criteria. For example, the Association of American Medical Colleges and the American Medical Association jointly sponsor the Liaison Committee on Medical Education, which accredits medical schools.

In another example, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) awards “deeming authority” to approved health care organization accreditors. Deeming authority means that accreditation can substitute for inspection by a state agency to determine whether a health care organization is eligible to receive payment from Medicare and Medicaid programs [ 18 ]. Similarly, the U.S. Department of Education provides a list of accreditors that are “recognized by the Secretary as reliable authorities concerning the quality of education or training offered by the institutions of higher education or higher education programs they accredit” [ 19 ].

Together, accredited organizations, accreditors, and collaborator organizations function as a network that supports consistent and high performance standards, continuous evaluation and improvement, and public transparency and accountability—although these characteristics are not specific to the context of sharing health information through social media.

Categories of accredited organizations that serve as sources of health information for the public include educational institutions (universities and health professions schools), health care organizations, health plans, and public health departments (see Box 5 for a summary and Appendix Table B-1 for a list of accreditors and what accreditation signifies for organizations in each category).

Types of Nonprofit, Accredited Organizations That Serve as Sources of Health Information in the United States

Health Professions Schools and Other Educational Institutions

• Schools of medicine
• Schools of nursing
• Schools of public health
• Schools of dentistry
• Schools of pharmacy
• Universities (e.g., departments or schools of biomedical science, health policy, social science, etc.)

Nonprofit Health Plans

Public Health Departments

• Territorial
• U.S. military installation

Health Care Organizations

• Ambulatory care providers (e.g., behavioral health centers, birthing centers, dental offices, dialysis centers, medical offices, occupational health centers, outpatient surgical centers, pain management centers, podiatry centers, radiation oncology practices, student health clinics, urgent care practices, women’s health clinics, etc.)
• Home-based health care providers
• Hospitals (e.g., academic medical centers, acute care and long-term care hospitals, critical access hospitals, and rehabilitation facilities. There are also a wide variety of specialty hospitals, including cancer, stroke, and cardiac centers; children’s hospitals; psychiatric hospitals; women’s hospitals, etc.)

NOTES: For-profit health plans are not considered in this paper. Public health departments are also government organizations, which are subject to additional transparency and accountability rules. Public health department accreditation is a relatively new field, and accreditation is issued by a single body, the Public Health Accreditation Board.

Credibility Concerns

As noted above, the accreditation mechanisms discussed in this section do not evaluate an organization’s credibility as a source of health information in social media. Rather, they affirm the general credibility of an organization in its role as a provider of a specific service, such as education or health care. Accredited organizations may not always adhere to the authors’ credibility principles and criteria (nonprofit health plans and ambulatory care centers, for example, may be subject to strong profit motives). Furthermore, accreditation may not be an option for all sources of high-quality health information. Therefore, accreditation is an imperfect proxy for the evaluation of an organization’s credibility as a source of health information and should be viewed as a preliminary indicator.

Further, there is tremendous variation in rigor and scope across accreditation programs, so accreditation does not convey adherence to a common standard for credibility. It should also be noted that some accreditation programs offer accreditation to organizations that do not share high-quality health information as defined by the authors. For these reasons, accreditation cannot serve as a comprehensive evaluation of credibility as a source of health information and should be supplemented by other forms of vetting.

Academic Health and Medical Journals

Academic journals are scholarly periodicals that publish research or reports specific to a profession or field of study. Many journals promote their publications through social media; in addition, journalists summarize journal articles and share their topline findings through social media. Academic journals are generally affiliated with educational institutions or professional associations. Although they exercise editorial independence, many are owned by for-profit publishing corporations, such as Elsevier.

Academic journals generally adhere to rigorous processes to ensure scientific excellence and integrity, such as peer review. For example, health and medical journals indexed by the U.S. National Library of Medicine (NLM) through MEDLINE must meet clear standards for “scope and coverage, editorial policies and processes”, scientific and methodological rigor, production and administration, and impact (see Box 3 ) [ 20 ]. A list of all MEDLINE-indexed journals is available from the NLM website [ 21 ].

Many journals also follow the Recommendations for the Conduct, Reporting, Editing, and Publication of Scholarly Work in Medical Journals produced by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE), an independent working group of medical journal editors [g]. Broadly, the recommendations establish standards for authorship, disclosure of financial and nonfinancial COI [h], editorial freedom, protection of research participants, corrections and retractions, and handling of scientific misconduct, among other guidance [ 22 ]. ICMJE publishes a list of journals that state that they follow the ICMJE recommendations on its website ( ICMJE.org ) but cautions that it cannot verify the accuracy or completeness of its list. However, echoing this paper’s position that the pursuit of perfection should not hamper incremental progress, ICMJE further notes that “maintenance of such a list may help to promote improvements in the quality of medical science and its reporting by indicating the standards many editors indicate they work to uphold” [ 23 ].

Despite rigorous editorial and scientific review processes, journals sometimes allow the publication of articles that contain errors or misinformation, some of which may be retracted later. A social media user who consumes information from such articles may never learn of their retraction. Furthermore, errors or oversimplifications may be inadvertently introduced by entities who communicate about research published by a journal or other source—an issue that is of particular concern in social media, given the brief and ephemeral nature of social media content.

Second, as noted earlier in this paper, the state of science is always evolving. Many academic journals publish the results of unique experiments that have not been—and in some cases cannot be—reproduced by other scientists. This phenomenon is referred to as a lack of “reproducibility” (defined as consistent results using the same data and processes) or “replicability” (defined as consistent answers to the same scientific question, using different data and processes) [ 24 ]. However, the scientific community does not always view challenges in reproducibility or replicability as a problem. Rather, early hypotheses and approaches are built on by other scientists and become part of the evolution of knowledge. However, these nuances are not likely to be clear to the average consumer of health information, who may interpret the results of a single experiment as conclusive. Regardless of reproducibility and replicability, entities that consume and communicate about research may place too much weight on a single study that may prove to be an outlier in metaanalyses or literature reviews.

Finally, there are a growing number of journals that misleadingly claim to be high-quality health and medical journals and do not conform with publishing best practices, including those outlined in the previous section. These journals publish almost every submission they receive, charge authors for the publication of their articles, and do not use scientific peer review processes. Further, some are deliberately deceptive by using titles that are similar to established, reputable journals [ 25 ]. Prospective authors can perform their own research to determine whether a journal they are considering for publication of their articles is reputable. However, this step is not likely to be taken by someone who encounters information from a journal that seems reputable in social media. Furthermore, for the reasons outlined in this section, the simple inclusion of an article in MEDLINE does not guarantee the absence of errors or misinformation.

Together, these credibility concerns call for an aggressive and sustained effort to educate consumers of health information about the nature of scientific experimentation, quality assurance processes upheld by academic journals, and, generally, the factors by which they can judge source credibility and information quality. The need for such an effort is discussed further in the following section.

Government Organizations

Federal, state, and local government organizations operate under a number of provisions that support their credibility as sources of health information—primarily in the areas of transparency and accountability. As part of the system of checks and balances built into the U.S. government, the Constitution gives the legislative and judiciary branches oversight over the executive branch, where many federal organizations that serve as sources of health information reside (see Box 7 ). For example, Congress could compel the disclosure of documents or require the sworn testimony of representatives from the CDC to evaluate the agency’s response to COVID-19. Many federal agencies produce information at the request of Congress, with internal and external review to increase the quality of that information. For example, the U.S. Government Accountability Office produces nonpartisan fact-based information at the request of congressional committees and subcommittees and operates a hotline for the public to report on government fraud, waste, or abuse.

Major Federal Government Organizations That Serve as Sources of Health Information

• Administration for Children and Families
• Administration for Community Living
• Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality
• Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry
• Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
• Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services
• Food and Drug Administration
• Health Resources and Services Administration
• Indian Health Service
• National Institutes of Health
• Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation
• Office of the Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response
• Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology
• Office of the Surgeon General
• Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration
• Veterans Health Administration
• Military Health System
• Federal Emergency Management Agency
• U.S. Department of Agriculture
• Office of Science and Technology Policy
• Social Security Administration
• U.S. Agency for International Development
• U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
• U.S. Geological Survey
• National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

The Rise of “Preprint” Scientific Articles During the COVID-19 Pandemic

“Preprint” refers to an article that has not yet been accepted for publication by an academic journal or undergone peer review. Authors upload preprints to servers designed for that purpose, where they can be accessed by fellow researchers and members of the public. This allows research to be shared, commented on, and refined more quickly than the traditional journal publication process. Some preprints are submitted for publication by a journal at the same time as their upload to a preprint server, and the majority of preprints go on to be formally published by journals [ a ]. The major preprint server for biomedical research is called medRxiv and was founded by Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory, BMJ, and Yale University. Disclaimer language on the server specifies that, “Preprints are preliminary reports of work that have not been certified by peer review. They should not be relied on to guide clinical practice or health-related behavior and should not be reported in news media as established information” [ b ].

The scientific community heavily utilized the preprint mechanism to quickly share research and information during the COVID-19 pandemic. Of more than 125,000 scientific articles on COVID-19 during the first 10 months of the crisis, more than 30,000—or about 25 percent of the research—were hosted on preprint servers. According to a study of medRxiv and bioRxiv (a related server for preprint biology research), 85 percent of authors who submitted articles on COVID-19 used a preprint server for the first time during the pandemic. COVID-19 preprints were also widely cited compared with articles on other subjects (almost 60 percent were cited at least once) and shared, including through social media (the most popular preprint was mentioned nearly 27,000 times on Twitter). Despite the servers’ admonition that preprints should not be relied on by the media, nearly 29 percent of COVID-19 preprints were featured in at least a single news article [a].

The increase in usage and popularity of preprints during the COVID-19 pandemic adds a layer of complexity to the discussion of academic journals as credible sources of health information, given the ease with which preprint research may be confused with articles that have undergone formal peer review and editorial oversight. However, preprint servers such as medRxiv (and, by extension, articles that carry a preprint citation) do not follow all of the authors’ principles and criteria for credible sources of health information outlined in this paper.

[a] Fraser, N., L. Brierley, G. Dey, J. K. Polka, M. Pálfy, F. Nanni, and J. A. Coates. 2021. The Evolving Role of Preprints in the Dissemination of COVID-19 Research and Their Impact on the Science Communication Landscape. PLoS Biology 19(4):e3000959. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.3000959

[b] medRXiv. About medRXiv. Available at: https://www.medrxiv.org/content/about-medrxiv (accessed June 19, 2021).

Public transparency laws reinforce this accountability. For example, the Freedom of Information Act requires disclosure, upon requests from the public, of documents controlled by the federal government (with specified exceptions), which allows for independent scrutiny and critique of government information. The Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act requires the disclosure of information about any organization that receives federal funds, while the Digital Accountability and Transparency Act sets standards for availability of this information on the federal website USASpending.gov . The Federal Advisory Committee Act requires that advisory committees to the federal government operate in an open and transparent manner so that the public can access and review the information these groups generate. Government agencies that receive a certain level of research funding (internal or external) must make the results of the research (such as in journal articles) available to the public for free. In addition, many external groups monitor information released by the government.

Similar provisions enhance the credibility of state and local governments as sources of health information, although such provisions may be less strict and may vary from one jurisdiction to another. Furthermore, state lawmakers can support highly divergent public health policies, as demonstrated by variations in mask-wearing guidance during the COVID-19 pandemic [ 26 ].

Trust in the federal government is low among some groups, compromising its influence as a credible source of health information. According to a survey from the Pew Research Center, only 24 percent of Americans trust the federal government “to do what is right just about always or most of the time” [ 27 ] (this statistic refers to the federal government in general, not as a source of health information). Trends in trust of the government vary among political party affiliation as well as race and ethnicity, suggesting that perception of government credibility may vary across population groups [ 28 ].

Furthermore, provisions for transparency and accountability are important attributes of credible sources but are not a guarantee of high-quality information. Recent events have raised further concern, as in the example of the CDC’s removal of scientific guidance after allegations of undue political pressure on the agency’s staff [ 29 ]. Clearly, the degree of transparency and accountability upheld by the government at all levels is influenced by the leaders currently in office. Politicization can bias or limit the information that government organizations release. Government organizations may also withhold complete information because of privacy or security concerns, which may result in fragmented or distorted perceptions of issues. Therefore, although the authors believe that government organizations can generally be treated as credible sources, the principles and attributes identified in this paper should apply to them as well, and gaps in credibility should be further examined.

Nonprofit Organizations Not Subject to Standardized Vetting Mechanisms

Many categories of nonprofit organizations that are not subject to standardized vetting mechanisms serve as sources of health information. Some adhere to rigorous standards that align with the principles and attributes outlined in this paper, and some do not. There is no pre-existing, standardized mechanism for evaluating the credibility of sources in this category (although individual mechanisms exist). Therefore, SMPs that wish to assess the credibility of such sources should develop a standardized process for assessing alignment with the principles and attributes identified in this paper.

Table 2 lists types of organizations that share health information (excluding health care organizations, health plans, government organizations, and public health departments), along with the authors’ general observations about the credibility of organizations in each category, drawing from the principles and attributes.

Credibility Assessment Steps

To assess the credibility of sources not subject to preexisting, standardized vetting mechanisms that align with the authors’ principles and attributes, SMPs would need to collect and evaluate a standardized set of data. The means of data collection could be either primary or secondary (i.e., SMPs could undertake their own discovery process or rely on information provided by a source). For example, primary data collection might mean using technology to “crawl” a source’s website for evidence of citations, peer review processes, COI disclosures, etc. Secondary data collection might take the form of a credibility attributes and disclosures section that a source could provide to an SMP and post publicly on the homepage of its social media channel(s). This latter approach would require sources to self-regulate and comply with an informal “honor system” or “code of ethics.” For example, a source would have to decide whether the content of an advertisement posted alongside health information constitutes a conflict of interest that could compromise the quality of that information.

On the other hand, as previously mentioned, sources that are subject to such standardized vetting mechanisms can be afforded a preliminary assumption of credibility, as well as government organizations by virtue of their strict accountability practices. However, even sources in these groups should strive to display a preponderance of the authors’ credibility attributes and publicly disclose any deviations (as well as be subject to parallel content evaluation, as described in the following).

For any source type, SMPs’ approach to credibility assessment should include a human-led quality assurance (QA) program. Algorithms and other automated technologies are likely not capable of evaluating every nuance of the credibility attributes. The QA system should verify alignment with source credibility attributes as well as the quality of the information shared. To ensure that consumers are accessing high-quality health information, some form of content assessment is essential as a supplement to source assessment. Although this paper does not provide guidance on principles or mechanisms for content assessment, the authors urge SMPs to invest in research and analysis to quickly build capacity in this area. Priority should be given to high-volume, highly influential sources of health information.

A particularly promising possibility for consideration by SMPs would be to outsource QA functions to an independent third party, either pre-existing or created for this purpose. This approach would bolster the objectivity and integrity of the process by reducing the role of SMPs, which are unavoidably conflicted by their financial and political stake in the performance of the system. To maximize independence and objectivity, this third party organization should not be solely funded by a single SMP.

Identifying Credible Sources for Consumers

Given the preliminary nature of the approach described in this paper and lack of insight into the policies and capabilities of SMPs, the authors do not offer an opinion as to whether or how SMPs should “elevate” credible sources of health information (e.g., via an algorithm). However, when it comes to options for identifying such sources for consumers, the authors suggest that SMPs do not at this time affix a formal label such as “credible” or “non-credible.” Instead, SMPs should provide contextual information that may serve as a “credibility cue” but stop short of a formal designation of credibility. For example, a platform could identify a source as an “Accredited Health Care Organization” and provide a link to a definition of that organization type, including general credibility observations such as those in Table 1 . Of note, Twitter has taken a similar approach to identify government- and state-affiliated accounts on its platform [ 30 ]. This method would also align with calls to preserve the right of individuals to make independent judgments about the information they are consuming (although it should be acknowledged that consumers’ judgments are impacted by their degree of health and digital literacy, as described in the following). Regardless of the specific approach to source identification, SMPs should be transparent with consumers about their policies as well as the principles and criteria that underlie them. Data collection and assessment, whether primary or secondary, as well as QA activities, should be performed at regular intervals (e.g., semiannually) to ensure sources’ ongoing alignment with the principles and attributes. Potentially, QA activities could also incorporate consumer feedback. Sources that do not demonstrate ongoing adherence should lose any public signal of credibility, and that loss should be made visible to consumers. SMPs may have or could develop lists of sources that are known proponents of harmful information, and these should be made public for the benefit of consumers.

[a] This chart is developed for credibility assessment of nonprofit and government organizations only. For-profit companies and individuals that serve as sources of health information should also undergo separate credibility assessment processes.

[b] Pre-existing, standardized vetting mechanisms that align with the authors’ principles and attributes include accreditation, academic journal indexing, and government accountability rules. Even sources subject to one of these mechanisms should strive to meet the authors’ stated credibility principles and attributes.

[c] See Table 1 for a list of principles and credibility attributes.

[d] Ideally, a quality assurance system that includes content assessment should supplement assessment of source credibility.

SMPs should also monitor the policies of peer social media companies, both to be aware of how their own content may be repackaged on other platforms (i.e., perhaps stripped of important contextual information) and to learn, share, and reach alignment on approaches to common challenges.

Parallel Strategies to Supplement Source Assessment

SMPs’ approaches to source assessment should continue to be refined and improved, and, importantly, should be supplemented by other strategies (as called for in public comments; see Box 2 ).

Content Assessment

Once again, although a reasonable starting point, evaluation of source credibility alone is not an adequate tool to ensure social media users’ access to high-quality health information. SMPs must supplement source assessment strategies with an equally robust system for content evaluation. In the interim, SMPs should clearly explain the limitations of source credibility to consumers (i.e., a source deemed credible is likely to share high-quality information, but not guaranteed). Ultimately, source credibility and information quality should be integrated under a single, streamlined assessment system to maximize clarity and usability for both sources and consumers.

Management of Misinformation

The elevation of credible sources of health information, while an important contribution, is not enough on its own to counteract the harms of misinformation and disinformation. SMPs should maintain parallel strategies to address such false and inaccurate information, as well as sources that deliberately promulgate such information. Admittedly, management of misinformation is a highly complex challenge, both politically and legally, making the elevation of credible sources and high-quality information a potentially more feasible priority.

As noted previously, the state of science and knowledge is always evolving, and information that was once consistent with the best available evidence at the time can quickly become outdated. Credible sources can avoid the perception of misinformation by using clear date labels and striving to update content regularly.

Health Literacy, Culturally Competent Communication, and Community Relationships

Regardless of the eventual system for elevating credible sources and high-quality information, consumers will still make their own judgments about which sources and information to trust. In fact, one of the major themes from the public comment period, summarized in Box 2 , was that SMPs must protect freedom of speech and the autonomy of users in accessing the information that they choose.

Users seeking health information may not be satisfied with an SMP’s assessment of source credibility or information quality. As explained by Lisa Fitzpatrick, founder and CEO of the Washington, DC-based community organization Grapevine Health, people are resourceful and often consult many sources, both online and offline, before reaching a conclusion [ 31 ]. Resourcefulness is an asset if people are empowered and provided with ready access to high-quality health information. Although many people have a high degree of health literacy, a large-scale effort is needed to ensure that resources are in place to support and educate all people to become savvy, informed, and science-literate users of social media. This concept is an important aspect of information equity [i] (across literacy levels, preferred languages, location/locality, etc.)—and, by extension, health equity.

Therefore, SMPs should invest in evidence-based health literacy and consumer education strategies to support the success of their in-house approaches to elevating credible sources and high-quality information. Such strategies could be designed and executed by the platforms themselves, but a better approach may be to delegate to independent third parties.

Consumers’ evaluation of the credibility of online information goes beyond source and content characteristics to considerations of design, or the way information is presented [ 3 ]. A source’s credibility is of little relevance if it fails to connect with its audience. As an illustration, Fitzpatrick shared a quote from a community member: “I don’t understand what doctors are saying, and if I don’t understand you, I can’t trust you” [ 31 ]. Several of the public comments the authors received echoed this point, noting that credible sources may not always present information in a manner that is appealing, engaging, or culturally competent.

“Cultural competence” refers to the ability to interact effectively with diverse audiences by recognizing and responding to variations in social, cultural, and linguistic needs [ 32 ]. Diversity should be considered across multiple dimensions, including but not limited to, race/ethnicity, education level, socioeconomic status, age, and political affiliation. Political affiliation may be particularly relevant to this discussion, as there is a 22 percent difference between Republicans who express a great deal of confidence in medical scientists (31 percent) and Democrats (53 percent) [ 33 ]. Republicans are also less approving of SMPs’ efforts with regard to content moderation, making it important to engage with bipartisan opinions in the design of policies such as those discussed in this paper [ 34 ].

Organizations that strive to be credible sources of health information should invest in strategies to improve their communication skills by using language and images that are informed by cultural contexts as well as understandable and engaging (at the same time, however, they must share complete and precise information and avoid oversimplification) [j]. They should also seek to build authentic, collaborative relationships at the community level. These efforts may help to foster consumers’ trust— which is all the more important as communication challenges during the COVID-19 pandemic may have impacted the perceived credibility of public health authorities in the United States [ 35 ].

As with efforts to advance health literacy and consumer education, SMPs should consider financial support for such endeavors to promote competent communication by credible sources on their platforms. Social scientists in the fields of science, risk, and health communication would make productive partners for SMPs in this work.

Source Self-Regulation and Consumer Evaluation

Rather than waiting for evaluation by SMPs, sources of health information that wish to be considered credible should take proactive steps to apply science-based, objective, and transparent and accountable principles to their institutional practices and presentation of information. The principles and attributes set forth in this paper may provide a useful starting point, as well as other resources (including those described in Box 3 and Appendix A ) . By making these efforts transparent and highly visible to the public and their peers, organizations can begin to build a self-sustaining, cultural “norm” for credibility that may ultimately increase the quantity of high-quality information in social media and have a cascading effect on the quality of information both online and offline.

A transparent set of principles used by sources to assert their own credibility would also support consumers’ independent judgments, as called for in the public comments that informed this paper. Consumer evaluation can supplement the efforts of SMPs to identify and elevate credible sources and high-quality information, as well as ensure accountability when sources fail to adhere to standards they set for themselves. However, there are several major limitations to the application of consumer evaluation in this context.

First, as noted previously, consumers have differing levels of health and digital literacy, which impacts their ability to assess the credibility of a source or the quality of a piece of information. This is why SMPs whose goal is to increase access to high-quality information should support efforts to advance health literacy. Second, consumer opinion is often captured through measurements of source or content popularity, comments, and recommendations, among other means [ 3 ]. Such elements can be easily “hijacked” by entities whose goal is to spread misinformation or disinformation, as has been seen in anti-vaccination disinformation campaigners’ use of “bots” and “trolls” to amplify their reach and engagement on Twitter [ 37 ]. Finally, as noted in Box 4 , the interplay between consumer trust and credibility is complex and may be difficult to parse in consumer feedback. Nevertheless, consumer feedback is an important consideration, including in the design of source and content evaluation policies.

The Relationship Between Trust and Credibility

Trusted is not synonymous with credible . Sources considered credible by the authors’ definition may not be trusted by all individuals and groups, while sources that are widely trusted may not be credible. However, trust affects the perception of credibility, and by extension, the influence of credible sources of health information. For example, according to a survey by the RAND Corporation, trust in the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) declined by about 10 percent during the COVID-19 pandemic. The authors of the survey suggest that “public trust in federal government agencies has never been as important as it has been during the COVID-19 pandemic, yet public suspicions of scientific experts and levels of distrust of government institutions are increasing” [ a ]. Because the CDC plays an essential role in disseminating scientific information and public health guidance to the nation, its trust deficit is a significant problem that could have bearing on health outcomes.

Therefore, no matter how credible public health organizations might be, building trust should be a primary focus of their approach to information sharing and relationship building (through social media as well as other means). In a 2021 rapid expert consultation on promoting trust around the COVID-19 vaccine, the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine offered strategies for engaging communities to combat mistrust, including forming partnerships with community organizations; “engaging trusted messengers who have roots in the community”; and communicating across multiple, accessible channels [ b ].

Just as building trust should be a priority for credible sources of health information, ensuring the credibility of highly trusted and influential sources should be of primary concern for SMPs and other stakeholders concerned with public health and health communication.

[a] https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RRA308-12.html

[b] National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2021. Strategies for Building Confidence in the COVID-19 Vaccines. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. Available at: https://doi.org/10.17226/26068 .

Ethical and Public Health Considerations

In an effort to ensure that the guidance in this paper increases access to high-quality health information, thereby promoting health, and minimizes harm, the authors have also outlined ethical and public health considerations for the approach described herein.

Ethical Considerations

Control of information.

Control of information emerged as a key concern during the public comment period. SMPs’ efforts to increase access to high-quality information (by elevating credible sources) may be perceived as censorship or an attempt to limit the autonomy of information consumers (see Box 2 ) . Platforms should strive to engage consumers in the design and evaluation of such strategies and maintain public transparency around policies and actions taken. Policies should balance the need to minimize the harm that could occur through propagation of health misinformation (as seen during the CO-VID-19 pandemic [ 7 ]) with the right of the consumer to undertake a personal evaluation and judgment.

Structural Bias

BIPOC have historically been underrepresented in many institutions that enjoy a reputation for credibility today. For example, racial segregation persisted in U.S. universities until the latter half of the 20th century, and more insidious forms of prejudice endure to this day [ 37 ]. BIPOC researchers and their research insights are underrepresented in clinical and biomedical fields and are less likely to receive federal funding than their White counterparts [ 38 ]. According to 2020 data from the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, Black and other people of color made up 38 percent of the federal workforce but only 22 percent of Senior Executive Service positions [ 39 ]. This historic and ongoing under-representation of BIPOC and others in positions of influence in academia, science, health care, and government means information shared by these institutions may not always reflect the experiences of or resonate with these groups— thereby perpetuating underrepresentation and information inequity.

To counter this bias and increase equity and representation, SMPs should make a concerted effort to identify and promote sources that are not only credible but also trusted and utilized by diverse audiences, including BIPOC and other groups, such as new immigrants, LGBTQIA+ individuals, religious minorities, and people with disabilities. SMPs should assess consumer data to identify sources that are heavily utilized by marginalized groups and prioritize them for credibility evaluation and potential elevation. Partnerships with groups that represent the rights and health of such groups will be essential to the success of this effort.

Financial Conflict

A system that elevates credible sources of health information may create a new “credibility brand” that is profitable for both sources and SMPs themselves. As set forth in the authors’ principles and criteria, credible sources should take steps to ensure that financial and ideological interests do not compromise the presentation of science-based health information. However, financial gain and enhanced influence may be unavoidable collateral effects of designation as a credible source in social media channels.

SMPs should support research to understand the impact of credibility designations on the quality of information shared by sources, on sources’ level of influence both inside and outside social media, and on sources’ financial status. Advertisements should not be attached to high-quality health information shared through SMPs, both to minimize financial conflicts of interest and to avoid compromising the quality and accessibility of the information (e.g., with distracting and potentially misleading ads).

To uphold their integrity, SMPs should separate their own profit motives as much as possible from efforts to elevate credible sources of health information. One way to achieve this would be for platforms to work with independent third parties to design and implement source and content evaluation and moderation strategies.

Feasibility and Appropriateness of SMPs’ Role

This paper has made significant asks of SMPs beyond the initial task of identifying and elevating credible sources of health information. In addition to a quality assurance system for source evaluation, these include parallel strategies for content assessment and misinformation management, as well as collaborative efforts to promote equity and support public health research. Such activities will require a considerable investment of time and resources, and SMPs do not necessarily have a financial incentive to make this investment [ 41 ]. Some argue that platforms are actually disincentivized from interventions that could dampen profits driven by advertising and high rates of engagement with misinformation [ 42 ]. However, SMPs’ engagement in highly visible social responsibility efforts, as well as an enhanced corpus of credible sources that are trusted and relied on by consumers, may prove financially and politically beneficial.

The complexity of SMPs’ interests merits careful consideration of their role as moderators of health and other crucial public information. Although the authors believe that SMPs should take a proactive role across several dimensions, as outlined in this paper, government regulation and delegation to independent third parties should also be considered as potential supplementary approaches.

Public Health Considerations

Health equity.

A system to elevate credible sources—and thereby increase access to high-quality health information—must be designed to support health equity, as well as information equity, and not cement existing inequities. Diversity and inclusion are important components of a system that promotes health equity. As noted previously in the “Structural Bias” section, efforts to eliminate racial bias and foster diverse representation among credible sources of health information are important to avoid perpetuating health inequities.

Older people, adolescents, people with lower education and income levels, and racial and ethnic minority groups are more likely to face challenges related to limited health literacy [ 43 ]. Therefore, efforts to foster health literacy, engage in culturally competent communication, and build and sustain community relationships and trusted networks—as called for by the authors as a supplemental strategy to elevating credible sources—are supportive of health equity. SMPs should be sure to use accessible language when defining and explaining policies related to credible sources of information. SMPs should also consider digital literacy and strategies to address equity in access to high-quality digital information—a challenge referred to as the “digital divide.”

The digital divide is defined as “disparities in technology access and use [that have] compounding effects on existing inequities along income, educational, racial, and geographic dimensions” [ 44 ]. Although approximately three-quarters of Americans have access to high-speed broadband internet at home, rates vary significantly by education level and income. In 2019, only 46 percent of people with less than a high school education had broadband, compared with 93 percent of college graduates. In 2021, the rates were 57 percent for people making less than $30,000 annually and 92 percent for people making more than $75,000. Disparities by race and ethnicity are less dramatic but still significant: 80, 71, and 65 percent for white, Black, and Hispanic people, respectively, in 2021 [ 44 ]. Despite this, Black and Hispanic people are more deeply engaged in social media than whites across some dimensions [ 45 ].

The digital divide is an important consideration for SMPs as well as other platforms that facilitate the sharing of health information. If efforts to increase access to high-quality health information disproportionately benefit highly educated, wealthy, and white people, then they are cementing health and information inequities.

Contribution to Public Health Research

SMPs can be important partners in improving public health, but only if they agree to share data (e.g. back-end data, algorithms and use engagement metrics, content moderation processes) with researchers. This paper provides guidance that is intended to increase access to high-quality health information and thereby promote individual and population health. However, SMPs alone have access to data that could form the basis of important health and behavioral research about how policies such as those discussed herein would actually affect the consumption of high-quality health information, as well as whether enhanced access to such information would favorably impact offline outcomes.

In addition to sharing such data as outlined previously, SMPs should be transparent about the methods they use to promote consumption of high-quality health information (e.g., through algorithmic recommendations), as well as the full scope of their policies and processes with regard to health information of any quality. As noted earlier, health misinformation and disinformation spread through social media can negatively impact health outcomes, and SMPs should take responsibility for and develop solutions to mitigate elements of their systems that enable such information to flourish.

SMPs’ reluctance or failure to share such data and moderation methods would prevent fully productive collaborations with the public health and behavioral science communities. To be considered credible themselves, platforms should make a public and highly visible commitment to transparency and accountability, especially with regard to data, policies and methods that could impact public health.

Increasing access to high-quality health information in social media is a complex challenge that requires navigating tremendous volume and variation among sources and information; the continuous evolution of science and knowledge; and significant ethical quandaries—chief among them, the need to protect free speech and consumers’ right to autonomy while minimizing the risk of harm from misinformation. To date, attempts at social media content moderation have been met with controversy and calls for federal regulation from both sides of the aisle [47]. Nevertheless, the potential influence of health information shared through social media on health outcomes, at both an individual and population level, compels action, even with the knowledge that such action will be incomplete at first.

This paper has presented guidance that could be leveraged by SMPs in identifying credible sources of health information—an incremental step toward the goal of enhancing access to high-quality health information. Although the scope of this discussion has been limited to U.S.-based nonprofit or government sources only, it is likely that many of the principles, attributes, and considerations can be applied to for-profit sources or individuals, as well as sources outside the United States. Efforts to fully assess the credibility of these sources, many of which are highly influential, should be an urgent priority for SMPs.

However, source evaluation is not a comprehensive solution. Several parallel strategies are required to ensure information quality and combat the risks of health misinformation, as detailed earlier. Foremost among these is a strategy to assess information quality and develop content moderation plans in response. The authors acknowledge the infeasibility of evaluating the accuracy and balance of every piece of health information on social media. However, a system of “spot checks” for quality and integrity, supported by machine learning technology but supplemented by expert human evaluation, is within reach. SMPs should invest in developing principles, guidelines, and applications for content assessment alongside strategies for source evaluation. Ultimately, the two approaches should be consolidated in a single system for the identification and elevation of high-quality health information. As previously noted, SMPs’ efforts in these areas should be supplemented by government regulation or delegation to independent third parties.

SMPs cannot, and should not, tackle this challenge alone. As those ultimately impacted by social media source or content curation strategies, consumers must be engaged in developing such strategies. Public engagement is also essential to promote transparency, foster trust, and minimize perceptions of censorship or paternalism. Organizations that use social media to share information have an important role as well, and should hold themselves publicly accountable to a set of principles that supports the quality of the information they share, as well as their own institutional credibility. Together, the actions taken by consumers, organizations, and SMPs can move toward greater availability and accessibility of high-quality health information.

Finally, consumers and organizations that utilize social media deserve to understand the mechanics and the outcomes of policies that affect the information they receive and share. Therefore, SMPs should make their source and content moderation practices (e.g., algorithms) and relevant data accessible to independent behavioral and public health researchers to analyze the effects on information consumption as well as offline behaviors. Without such information, consumers and organizations that collaborate with SMPs will have no way of knowing whether policies are justified or effective. To be effective partners in improving health, SMPs must make a firm commitment to transparency and accountability.

Acknowledgments

This paper benefited from the thoughtful reflections of Anita Allen, University of Pennsylvania Law School; Lindsay Diamond, Community Immunity; Jennifer Kavanagh, RAND Corporation; Laurie Myers, Merck; Camille Nebeker, University of California, San Diego; and Dietram Scheufele, University of Wisconsin–Madison.

In addition, the authors would like to acknowledge the input of Brooke Bergen, Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC); Justin DeJong, American Medical Association (AMA); April Finnen, U.S. Food and Drug Administration; Lisa Fitzpatrick, Grapevine Health; Caitlin Ganet, AMA; Darren Taichman, New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM); Prarthana Vasudevan, Johns Hopkins University Center for Health Security; Stephanie Weiner, AAMC; and Jennifer Zeis, NEJM.

The authors would also like to recognize the contributions of Laura DeStefano, National Academy of Medicine (NAM); Jenna Ogilvie, NAM; Holly Rhodes, National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine; David Butler, National Academy of Engineering; Steve Olson; and Frank Walsh, McCabe Message Partners.

APPENDIX A. Models for Assessment of Source Credibility

The National Library of Medicine (NLM) has developed at least three major source evaluation systems that provide useful examples for the task at hand: MEDLINE indexing, MedlinePlus indexing, and the Disaster Lit database.

MEDLINE Journal Selection

The National Library of Medicine (NLM), the world’s largest medical library, uses stringent criteria to determine whether a journal should be included in MEDLINE, NLM’s premier bibliographic database. MEDLINE is the primary component of PubMed, a freely accessible online literature database developed and maintained by the NLM National Center for Biotechnology Information (NCBI), with new citations added daily.

In considering whether a journal merits inclusion in MEDLINE, NLM considers “the scientific and editorial character and quality of a journal”. Several factors are used in making this decision, including the scientific policy set by the NLM Board of Regents [ 1 ], the suitability of the journal for the NLM Collection, and the recommendations of an NIH Federal Advisory Committee, the Literature Selection Technical Review Committee (LSTRC) [ 2 ].

The LSTRC evaluates journals for MEDLINE based on 5 critical elements, including scope and coverage, editorial processes, scientific rigor/methodological rigor, production and administration, and impact (more detail on all characteristics can be found at https://www.nlm.nih.gov/medline/medline_journal_selection.html [ 3 ]).

By using such clear and detailed guidelines for their journal selection process, NLM’s goal with MEDLINE is to demonstrate a high level of scientific rigor while reflecting sufficient geographic heterogeneity.

MEDLINEPlus.

MedlinePlus is another resource created and curated by the NLM. Unlike MEDLINE, which is primarily used by researchers and professionals, MedlinePlus is a health information website for patients, their families and friends, and the general public. MedlinePlus aggregates health information from a variety of sources. “Some pages, like the medical encyclopedia and drug information, are licensed from outside sources. Other pages, like health topic pages, medical tests, and genetic pages, are created specifically for MedlinePlus” [ 4 ].

Information on MedlinePlus is reviewed and updated according to guidelines developed for each type of page. Health topics are “updated as new information becomes available, and broken links are checked and fixed daily” [ 4 ]. Medical tests are reviewed at least every 3 years, although content is also updated as needed between review cycles. Genetics pages are reviewed by experts in the field before being posted to MedlinePlus and with each substantial revision thereafter, and patient support and advocacy groups provide feedback on select content. MedlinePlus also adds new and updated articles and illustrations to the A.D.A.M. Medical Encyclopedia each month, and an A.D.A.M. Editorial Policy ensures that included content presents evidence-based health information.

In determining whether to link to a nongovernment website, MedlinePlus staff considers a range of criteria related to the website’s content, advertising, availability and maintenance, and user privacy. In examining a resource’s content, these criteria include:

• The website offers a description of the organization, including a mission statement that aligns with MedlinePlus’s aim to provide accurate health information to patients and their families and friends.
• “The organization provides accurate, science-based information that complements or enhances the health information found on MedlinePlus.
• The source of the content is trustworthy and transparent.
• The primary purpose of the website is educational, and the information is unbiased.
• The information provided is easy to understand, easy to navigate, and well organized.
• The website has original content.
• The website links only to reliable sources that meet MedlinePlus guidelines for links or other clearly stated guidelines established by the website” [ 5 ].

In addition to such content considerations, MedlinePlus gives preference to pages with no advertising. If the website has advertising, it must display an advertising policy that clearly separates educational content from advertising or sponsorship. MedlinePlus will not link to web resources that present content suggesting that Medline Plus endorses certain commercial products or services. For a resource to be linked on MedlinePlus, the website must also be consistently available, include contact information for customer support, and provide current information. Furthermore, websites must not require users to register, become a member of the organization, or pay a fee to view health information. Finally, MedlinePlus criteria specify that if a website collects personal information, it must clearly display “a privacy policy that explains how information collected from users remains private and confidential. If a website displays advertising, it should prevent advertisers and sponsors from collecting any personally identifiable information from users” [ 5 ].

In addition to these criteria for resources linked to MedlinePlus, for all the pages on MedlinePlus, a “page last reviewed” date is available near the bottom of the page to indicate “when the entire topic was reviewed and updated while a “page last updated” date indicates when any information was added to or removed from the health topic page” [ 5 ]. These additional indicators allow users to verify the currency of the content they are consuming.

The CRAP Test

Molly Beestrum, education and curriculum coordinator at Northwestern University’s Galter Health Sciences Library & Learning Center, developed a system known as the CRAP Test that can be used in deciding whether a website is a credible, valid source. The CRAP Test considers four major website attributes: currency, reliability, authority, and purpose. To apply Beestrum’s test, Colorado Community Colleges Online suggests asking the following questions:

“Currency

• How recent is the information?
• How recently has the website been updated?
• Is it current enough for your topic?

Reliability

• What kind of information is included in the resource?
• Is content of the resource primarily opinion? Is it balanced?
• Does the creator provide references or sources for data or quotations?
• Who is the creator or author?
• What are the credentials? Can you find any information about the author’s background?
• Who is the publisher or sponsor?
• Are they reputable?
• What is the publisher’s interest (if any) in this information?
• Are there advertisements on the website? If so, are they clearly marked?
• Is this fact or opinion? Does the author list sources or cite references?
• Is it biased? Does the author seem to be trying to push an agenda or particular side?
• Is the creator/author trying to sell you something? If so, is it clearly stated?” [ 6 ]

Clinical Practice Guidelines We Can Trust

The 2011 Institute of Medicine (IOM) study Clinical Practice Guidelines We Can Trust is another resource that may provide useful insights into the determination process for high-quality health information in social media [ 7 ]. Clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) help to reduce the level of uncertainty in clinical practice by establishing standards of care backed by strong scientific evidence. These standards “are informed by a systematic review of evidence and assessment of the benefits and costs of alternative care options” [ 7 ]. However, many different sets of CPGs have been developed and employed, to varying degrees of success. With nearly 27,000 guidelines in the National Guideline Clearinghouse (NGC) and numerous additional commercial guidelines, it can be challenging to “identify guidelines based on high-quality development methods. Although the NGC provides a standardized summary of each CPG posting, describing its development methodology and evidence base and providing a link to the full guideline, the NGC makes no quality judgment” [ 7 ]. As a result, it can be difficult for stakeholders to be confident of CPG quality.

To combat this issue, Clinical Practice Guidelines We Can Trust proposed eight standards for developing trustworthy CPG and called for the development of a mechanism to identify guidelines that meet these standards. These standards include: “emphasizing transparency; management of conflict of interest; systematic review—guideline development intersection; establishing evidence foundations for and rating strength of guideline recommendations; articulation of recommendations; external review; and updating” [ 7 ]. The report identifies three options in determining whether a CPG meets these standards: “1) identifying each guideline to see if it meets the specified standards; 2) certifying organizations producing guidelines that comply with quality standards; or 3) acknowledging standards compliance for each guideline production process prior to development of the guideline” [ 7 ].

Due to the large number of CPGs, the report suggests certification of organizations with trustworthy CPG development procedures rather than identification of individual trustworthy CPGs or identification of the development process for each CPG. This type of evaluation would entail “reviewing the procedures that applicant organizations use to produce various types of guidance, providing an identifiable mark to be placed on future CPGs of those organizations meeting accreditation requirements, and agreeing to maintain the approved processes during a 3-year accreditation period” [ 7 ]. This certification process “would not endorse particular drugs or treatment options for medical conditions or make clinical decisions about the guidelines it reviews” [ 7 ]. Instead, it would merely certify the organization’s guideline development process and identify the resulting CPGs as trustworthy.

Health on the Net Foundation Certification

The Health on the Net Foundation (HON) is an international nonprofit organization based in Switzerland. The HON Code of Conduct (HONcode) was created to help standardize the reliability of medical and health information available online by defining a set of rules to hold website developers accountable to basic ethical standards in the presentation of information. This voluntary certification system is based on an “active seal” concept that helps users identify sources of reliable information.

To be certified by HON, a website must formally apply for registration. If accepted, the site must comply with all eight principles enumerated in the HONcode:

• 1. “Authoritative: Any medical or health advice provided and hosted on this site will only be given by medically trained and qualified professionals unless a clear statement is made that a piece of advice offered is from a non-medically qualified individual or organization.
• 2. Complementarity: The information provided on this site is designed to support, not replace, the relationship that exists between a patient/site visitor and his/her existing physician.
• 3. Privacy: Confidentiality of data relating to individual patients and visitors to a medical/health Website, including their identity, is respected by this Website. The Website owners undertake to honor or exceed the legal requirements of medical/health information privacy that apply in the country and state where the Website and mirror sites are located.
• 4. Attribution: Where appropriate, information contained on this site will be supported by clear references to source data and, where possible, have specific HTML links to those data. The date when a clinical page was last modified will be clearly displayed (e.g., at the bottom of the page).
• 5. Justifiability: Any claims relating to the benefits/performance of a specific treatment, commercial product, or service will be supported by appropriate, balanced evidence in the manner outlined previously in Principle 4.
• 6. Transparency: The designers of this Website will seek to provide information in the clearest possible manner and provide contact addresses for visitors that seek further information or support. The webmaster will display his/her E-mail address clearly throughout the Website.
• 7. Financial disclosure: Support for this Website will be clearly identified, including the identities of commercial and non-commercial organizations that have contributed funding, services, or material for the site.
• 8. Advertising policy: If advertising is a source of funding, it will be clearly stated. A brief description of the advertising policy adopted by the Website owners will be displayed on the site. Advertising and other promotional material will be presented to viewers in a manner and context that facilitates differentiation between it and the original material created by the institution operating the site” [ 8 ].

To determine whether a site adheres to these standards, sites requesting certification complete an interactive, online questionnaire that tells them what they must add or modify to conform to the HONcode principles. Then an HON team member inspects the site to verify compliance. Once a site has been verified, it identifies itself with the blue and red HONcode hyperlink (or “active”) seal displayed in a prominent location, usually at the bottom of the homepage. Subscribing sites are subject to unannounced checks by HON to ensure continued compliance, and HON also relies on user reports to maintain website reliability.

URAC Health Content Provider and Health Website Certification

URAC provides health care organizations with evidence-based accreditation programs, including health content provider and health website certification. URAC accreditation involves a five-phase, voluntary process that requires reaccreditation every 3 years and is designed to facilitate continuous quality improvement. In the first phase, applicants provide URAC with standard information about their organization as well as specific information related to the type of certification being sought. In the second phase, a lead reviewer evaluates the submitted documents to determine whether they comply with URAC’s standards. During this step, the lead reviewer may provide recommendations to the applicant on how to revise an application to conform to URAC’s policies. The third phase involves an on-site validation review to ensure that the organization is following the standards in practice. In the fourth step, the URAC review team presents an anonymous report to a voluntary accreditation committee. This team of health experts is familiar with URAC standards and determines whether an organization receives full or partial accreditation. The final phase of the accreditation process includes ongoing monitoring such as random surveillance and required reporting of quality measures.

In all certification programs, URAC employs these five phases to focus on risk management, operations infrastructure, performance monitoring and improvement, and consumer protection and empowerment. Certification-specific standards are then designed to further support these goals. For instance, the” Health Content Provider accreditation process examines key areas such as disclosures, health content and service delivery, quality oversight committee, policies and procedures, health content and personal health management, and accountability” [ 9 ]. In contrast, considerations that factor into earning a Health Website Accreditation include privacy and security, health content editorial processes, disclosure of financial relationships, website linking policies, and consumer complaint processes.

Appendix A References

Appendix b. table b-1: types, definitions, and accreditors of nonprofit accredited organizations that may serve as sources of health information in the united states and what ac-creditation signifies.

APPENDIX C. Questionnaire Used to Collect Public Comments on the “Preliminary Discussion Document” for the National Academy of Medicine Project on “Principles for Defining & Verifying the Authority of Online Providers of Health Information”

In order to enhance the accessibility of trustworthy health information on its platform, YouTube asked the National Academy of Medicine (NAM) to identify preliminary definitions of “authoritative” sources of health information and the criteria by which these sources derive and maintain their authority. The NAM project will also outline ethical and public health considerations for large-scale content curation strategies.

An expert advisory group will gather information and deliberate in order to author a peer-reviewed discussion paper for publication in NAM Perspectives in summer 2021. Papers published in NAM Perspectives are individually authored and do not reflect consensus positions of the NAM, the National Academies, or the authors’ organizations. See project webpage >>

YouTube has informed the NAM that outcomes from this project will help to inform YouTube’s identification and raising of “authoritative” sources of health information, but will not disadvantage sources that do not meet the requirements of specific authoritative source categories. Further, the NAM understands that YouTube will identify and characterize such “authoritative” sources in order to provide context for users but will not confer a formal designation of authority or trustworthiness at the source level. The project will also generate principles that may be of use to online platforms other than YouTube.

Public Discussion Document

To inform the project, the NAM is seeking feedback on a public discussion document containing preliminary principles and questions. The public comment period will last from 12 pm ET on April 5, 2021, until 11:59 pm ET on April 9, 2021.

An anonymized synthesis of feedback received through this process will be posted on the project webpage after the comment period closes. The NAM reserves the right to disregard feedback it considers to be off topic or inappropriate.

Download the discussion document here >>

To leave a comment, please complete the form below.

First and last name of commenter:*

Email address of commenter:*

If you are commenting on behalf of an organization, please enter the organization name here:

One-sentence summary of your comments:*

Complete comments:*

Would you like to receive email updates about this project?*

* = Question is required

Funding Statement

The views expressed in this paper are those of the authors and not necessarily of the authors’ organizations, the National Academy of Medicine (NAM), the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (the National Academies), or the National Institutes of Health (NIH). The paper is intended to help inform and stimulate discussion. It is not a report of the NAM or the National Academies.

[a] Social media platforms are for-profit companies that allow people and organizations to create profiles, interact with other users, share information, form groups or networks, and promote businesses or causes through various means.

[b] Facebook owns Instagram and Whatsapp (see https://about.facebook.com/company-info ). YouTube is owned by Alphabet Inc., the parent company of Google (see https://abc.xyz).

[c] For an overview of the NAM project, see https://nam.edu/programs/principles-for-defining-and-verifying-the-authority-of-online-providers-of-health-information . YouTube provided funding totaling $100,000 to offset the NAM’s operational expenses in facilitating the project. Karen DeSalvo, Chief Health Officer, Google Health, is an NAM member and serves on the NAM’s governing Council (YouTube is owned by Alphabet Inc., the parent company for Google). Garth Graham, Director and Global Head of Healthcare and Public Health Partnerships, is an NAM member (see https://blog.youtube/news-and-events/new-health-content-coming-youtube).

[d] The NAM has a presence on Facebook, Instagram, LinkedIn, Twitter, and YouTube.

[e] McCabe Message Partners, Washington, DC.

[f] It should be noted that freedom of speech has some limitations, including what is known as the “true threat” doctrine, which prohibits speech that constitutes a “clear and present danger,” such as the famous example of “shouting fire in a theater.” See https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/95-815.pdf .

[g] See http://www.icmje.org/about-icmje . The current members of the ICMJE are Annals of Internal Medicine, British Medical Journal, Bulletin of the World Health Organization, Deutsches Ärzteblatt (German Medical Journal), Ethiopian Journal of Health Sciences, JAMA (Journal of the American Medical Association), Journal of Korean Medical Science, New England Journal of Medicine, New Zealand Medical Journal, The Lancet, Revista Médica de Chile (Medical Journal of Chile), Ugeskrift for Laeger (Danish Medical Journal), the U.S. National Library of Medicine, and the World Association of Medical Editors.

[h] Proper disclosure of conflicts of interest relies on the integrity of authors and cannot be fully enforced by journals.

[i] Information equity refers to equity of people’s access to information (e.g., through internet access) as well as the ability to understand and use that information to their benefit.

[j] For principles for making health information “understandable, useful, and navigable,” see https://nam.edu/perspectives-2014-health-literacy-principles-guidance-for-making-information-understandable-useful-and-navigable .

Conflict-of-Interest Disclosures: None to disclose.

Contributor Information

Raynard S. Kington, Phillips Academy in Andover.

Stacey Arnesen, National Library of Medicine.

Wen-Ying Sylvia Chou, National Cancer Institute.

Susan J. Curry, The University of Iowa.

David Lazer, Northeastern University.

Antonia M. Villarruel, University of Pennsylvania.

• Introduction
• Conclusions
• Article Information

The reports to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System met the case definition of myocarditis (reported cases). Among individuals older than 40 years of age, there were no more than 8 reports of myocarditis for any individual age after receiving either vaccine. For the BNT162b2 vaccine, there were 114 246 837 first vaccination doses and 95 532 396 second vaccination doses; and for the mRNA-1273 vaccine, there were 78 158 611 and 66 163 001, respectively. The y-axis range differs between panels A and B.

The reports to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System met the case definition of myocarditis (reported cases). Among recipients of either vaccine, there were only 13 reports or less of myocarditis beyond 10 days for any individual time from vaccination to symptom onset. The y-axis range differs between panels A and B.

A, For the BNT162b2 vaccine, there were 138 reported cases of myocarditis with known date for symptom onset and dose after 114 246 837 first vaccination doses and 888 reported cases after 95 532 396 second vaccination doses.

B, For the mRNA-1273 vaccine, there were 116 reported cases of myocarditis with known date for symptom onset and dose after 78 158 611 first vaccination doses and 311 reported cases after 66 163 001 second vaccination doses.

eMethods. Medical Dictionary for Regulatory Activities Preferred Terms, Definitions of Myocarditis and Pericarditis, Myocarditis medical review form

eFigure. Flow diagram of cases of myocarditis and pericarditis reported to Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) after receiving mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccine, United States, December 14, 2020-August 31, 2021.

eTable 1. Characteristics of all myocarditis cases reported to Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) after mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccination, United States, December 14, 2020–August 31, 2021.

eTable 2. Characteristics of all pericarditis cases reported to Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) after mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccination, United States, December 14, 2020–August 31, 2021.

eTable 3. Characteristics of myocarditis cases reported to Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System after mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccination by case definition status.

• Myocarditis and Pericarditis After Vaccination for COVID-19 JAMA Research Letter September 28, 2021 This study investigates the incidence of myocarditis and pericarditis emergency department or inpatient hospital encounters before COVID-19 vaccine availability (January 2019–January 2021) and during a COVID-19 vaccination period (February-May 2021) in a large US health care system. George A. Diaz, MD; Guilford T. Parsons, MD, MS; Sara K. Gering, BS, BSN; Audrey R. Meier, MPH; Ian V. Hutchinson, PhD, DSc; Ari Robicsek, MD
• Myocarditis Following a Third BNT162b2 Vaccination Dose in Military Recruits in Israel JAMA Research Letter April 26, 2022 This study assessed whether a third vaccine dose was associated with the risk of myocarditis among military personnel in Israel. Limor Friedensohn, MD; Dan Levin, MD; Maggie Fadlon-Derai, MHA; Liron Gershovitz, MD; Noam Fink, MD; Elon Glassberg, MD; Barak Gordon, MD
• Myocarditis Cases After mRNA-Based COVID-19 Vaccination in the US—Reply JAMA Comment & Response May 24, 2022 Matthew E. Oster, MD, MPH; David K. Shay, MD, MPH; Tom T. Shimabukuro, MD, MPH, MBA
• Myocarditis Cases After mRNA-Based COVID-19 Vaccination in the US JAMA Comment & Response May 24, 2022 Sheila R. Weiss, PhD
• JAMA Network Articles of the Year 2022 JAMA Medical News & Perspectives December 27, 2022 This Medical News article is our annual roundup of the top-viewed articles from all JAMA Network journals. Melissa Suran, PhD, MSJ
• Diagnosis and Treatment of Acute Myocarditis—A Review JAMA Review April 4, 2023 This Review summarizes current evidence regarding the diagnosis and treatment of acute myocarditis. Enrico Ammirati, MD, PhD; Javid J. Moslehi, MD
• Patient Information: Acute Myocarditis JAMA JAMA Patient Page August 8, 2023 This JAMA Patient Page describes acute myocarditis and its symptoms, causes, diagnosis, and treatment. Kristin Walter, MD, MS
• Myocarditis Following Immunization With mRNA COVID-19 Vaccines in Members of the US Military JAMA Cardiology Brief Report October 1, 2021 This case series describes myocarditis presenting after COVID-19 vaccination within the Military Health System. Jay Montgomery, MD; Margaret Ryan, MD, MPH; Renata Engler, MD; Donna Hoffman, MSN; Bruce McClenathan, MD; Limone Collins, MD; David Loran, DNP; David Hrncir, MD; Kelsie Herring, MD; Michael Platzer, MD; Nehkonti Adams, MD; Aliye Sanou, MD; Leslie T. Cooper Jr, MD
• Patients With Acute Myocarditis Following mRNA COVID-19 Vaccination JAMA Cardiology Brief Report October 1, 2021 This study describes 4 patients who presented with acute myocarditis after mRNA COVID-19 vaccination. Han W. Kim, MD; Elizabeth R. Jenista, PhD; David C. Wendell, PhD; Clerio F. Azevedo, MD; Michael J. Campbell, MD; Stephen N. Darty, BS; Michele A. Parker, MS; Raymond J. Kim, MD
• Association of Myocarditis With BNT162b2 Vaccination in Children JAMA Cardiology Brief Report December 1, 2021 This case series reviews comprehensive cardiac imaging in children with myocarditis after COVID-19 vaccine. Audrey Dionne, MD; Francesca Sperotto, MD; Stephanie Chamberlain; Annette L. Baker, MSN, CPNP; Andrew J. Powell, MD; Ashwin Prakash, MD; Daniel A. Castellanos, MD; Susan F. Saleeb, MD; Sarah D. de Ferranti, MD, MPH; Jane W. Newburger, MD, MPH; Kevin G. Friedman, MD

See More About

Select your interests.

Customize your JAMA Network experience by selecting one or more topics from the list below.

• Academic Medicine
• Acid Base, Electrolytes, Fluids
• Allergy and Clinical Immunology
• American Indian or Alaska Natives
• Anesthesiology
• Anticoagulation
• Art and Images in Psychiatry
• Artificial Intelligence
• Assisted Reproduction
• Bleeding and Transfusion
• Caring for the Critically Ill Patient
• Challenges in Clinical Electrocardiography
• Climate and Health
• Climate Change
• Clinical Challenge
• Clinical Decision Support
• Clinical Implications of Basic Neuroscience
• Clinical Pharmacy and Pharmacology
• Complementary and Alternative Medicine
• Consensus Statements
• Coronavirus (COVID-19)
• Critical Care Medicine
• Cultural Competency
• Dental Medicine
• Dermatology
• Diabetes and Endocrinology
• Diagnostic Test Interpretation
• Drug Development
• Electronic Health Records
• Emergency Medicine
• End of Life, Hospice, Palliative Care
• Environmental Health
• Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion
• Facial Plastic Surgery
• Gastroenterology and Hepatology
• Genetics and Genomics
• Genomics and Precision Health
• Global Health
• Guide to Statistics and Methods
• Hair Disorders
• Health Care Delivery Models
• Health Care Economics, Insurance, Payment
• Health Care Quality
• Health Care Reform
• Health Care Safety
• Health Care Workforce
• Health Disparities
• Health Inequities
• Health Policy
• Health Systems Science
• History of Medicine
• Hypertension
• Images in Neurology
• Implementation Science
• Infectious Diseases
• Innovations in Health Care Delivery
• JAMA Infographic
• Law and Medicine
• Leading Change
• Less is More
• LGBTQIA Medicine
• Lifestyle Behaviors
• Medical Coding
• Medical Devices and Equipment
• Medical Education
• Medical Education and Training
• Medical Journals and Publishing
• Mobile Health and Telemedicine
• Narrative Medicine
• Neuroscience and Psychiatry
• Notable Notes
• Nutrition, Obesity, Exercise
• Obstetrics and Gynecology
• Occupational Health
• Ophthalmology
• Orthopedics
• Otolaryngology
• Pain Medicine
• Palliative Care
• Pathology and Laboratory Medicine
• Patient Care
• Patient Information
• Performance Improvement
• Performance Measures
• Perioperative Care and Consultation
• Pharmacoeconomics
• Pharmacoepidemiology
• Pharmacogenetics
• Pharmacy and Clinical Pharmacology
• Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation
• Physical Therapy
• Physician Leadership
• Population Health
• Primary Care
• Professional Well-being
• Professionalism
• Psychiatry and Behavioral Health
• Public Health
• Pulmonary Medicine
• Regulatory Agencies
• Reproductive Health
• Research, Methods, Statistics
• Resuscitation
• Rheumatology
• Risk Management
• Scientific Discovery and the Future of Medicine
• Shared Decision Making and Communication
• Sleep Medicine
• Sports Medicine
• Stem Cell Transplantation
• Substance Use and Addiction Medicine
• Surgical Innovation
• Surgical Pearls
• Teachable Moment
• Technology and Finance
• The Art of JAMA
• The Arts and Medicine
• The Rational Clinical Examination
• Tobacco and e-Cigarettes
• Translational Medicine
• Trauma and Injury
• Treatment Adherence
• Ultrasonography
• Users' Guide to the Medical Literature
• Vaccination
• Venous Thromboembolism
• Veterans Health
• Women's Health
• Workflow and Process
• Wound Care, Infection, Healing

Others Also Liked

• Download PDF
• X Facebook More LinkedIn
• CME & MOC

Oster ME , Shay DK , Su JR, et al. Myocarditis Cases Reported After mRNA-Based COVID-19 Vaccination in the US From December 2020 to August 2021. JAMA. 2022;327(4):331–340. doi:10.1001/jama.2021.24110

Manage citations:

© 2024

• Permissions

Myocarditis Cases Reported After mRNA-Based COVID-19 Vaccination in the US From December 2020 to August 2021

• 1 US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia
• 2 School of Medicine, Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia
• 3 Children’s Healthcare of Atlanta, Atlanta, Georgia
• 4 Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee
• 5 Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center, Cincinnati, Ohio
• 6 Boston Medical Center, Boston, Massachusetts
• 7 Duke University, Durham, North Carolina
• 8 US Food and Drug Administration, Silver Spring, Maryland
• Research Letter Myocarditis and Pericarditis After Vaccination for COVID-19 George A. Diaz, MD; Guilford T. Parsons, MD, MS; Sara K. Gering, BS, BSN; Audrey R. Meier, MPH; Ian V. Hutchinson, PhD, DSc; Ari Robicsek, MD JAMA
• Research Letter Myocarditis Following a Third BNT162b2 Vaccination Dose in Military Recruits in Israel Limor Friedensohn, MD; Dan Levin, MD; Maggie Fadlon-Derai, MHA; Liron Gershovitz, MD; Noam Fink, MD; Elon Glassberg, MD; Barak Gordon, MD JAMA
• Comment & Response Myocarditis Cases After mRNA-Based COVID-19 Vaccination in the US—Reply Matthew E. Oster, MD, MPH; David K. Shay, MD, MPH; Tom T. Shimabukuro, MD, MPH, MBA JAMA
• Comment & Response Myocarditis Cases After mRNA-Based COVID-19 Vaccination in the US Sheila R. Weiss, PhD JAMA
• Medical News & Perspectives JAMA Network Articles of the Year 2022 Melissa Suran, PhD, MSJ JAMA
• Review Diagnosis and Treatment of Acute Myocarditis—A Review Enrico Ammirati, MD, PhD; Javid J. Moslehi, MD JAMA
• JAMA Patient Page Patient Information: Acute Myocarditis Kristin Walter, MD, MS JAMA
• Brief Report Myocarditis Following Immunization With mRNA COVID-19 Vaccines in Members of the US Military Jay Montgomery, MD; Margaret Ryan, MD, MPH; Renata Engler, MD; Donna Hoffman, MSN; Bruce McClenathan, MD; Limone Collins, MD; David Loran, DNP; David Hrncir, MD; Kelsie Herring, MD; Michael Platzer, MD; Nehkonti Adams, MD; Aliye Sanou, MD; Leslie T. Cooper Jr, MD JAMA Cardiology
• Brief Report Patients With Acute Myocarditis Following mRNA COVID-19 Vaccination Han W. Kim, MD; Elizabeth R. Jenista, PhD; David C. Wendell, PhD; Clerio F. Azevedo, MD; Michael J. Campbell, MD; Stephen N. Darty, BS; Michele A. Parker, MS; Raymond J. Kim, MD JAMA Cardiology
• Brief Report Association of Myocarditis With BNT162b2 Vaccination in Children Audrey Dionne, MD; Francesca Sperotto, MD; Stephanie Chamberlain; Annette L. Baker, MSN, CPNP; Andrew J. Powell, MD; Ashwin Prakash, MD; Daniel A. Castellanos, MD; Susan F. Saleeb, MD; Sarah D. de Ferranti, MD, MPH; Jane W. Newburger, MD, MPH; Kevin G. Friedman, MD JAMA Cardiology

Question   What is the risk of myocarditis after mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccination in the US?

Findings   In this descriptive study of 1626 cases of myocarditis in a national passive reporting system, the crude reporting rates within 7 days after vaccination exceeded the expected rates across multiple age and sex strata. The rates of myocarditis cases were highest after the second vaccination dose in adolescent males aged 12 to 15 years (70.7 per million doses of the BNT162b2 vaccine), in adolescent males aged 16 to 17 years (105.9 per million doses of the BNT162b2 vaccine), and in young men aged 18 to 24 years (52.4 and 56.3 per million doses of the BNT162b2 vaccine and the mRNA-1273 vaccine, respectively).

Meaning   Based on passive surveillance reporting in the US, the risk of myocarditis after receiving mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccines was increased across multiple age and sex strata and was highest after the second vaccination dose in adolescent males and young men.

Importance   Vaccination against COVID-19 provides clear public health benefits, but vaccination also carries potential risks. The risks and outcomes of myocarditis after COVID-19 vaccination are unclear.

Objective   To describe reports of myocarditis and the reporting rates after mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccination in the US.

Design, Setting, and Participants   Descriptive study of reports of myocarditis to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) that occurred after mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccine administration between December 2020 and August 2021 in 192 405 448 individuals older than 12 years of age in the US; data were processed by VAERS as of September 30, 2021.

Exposures   Vaccination with BNT162b2 (Pfizer-BioNTech) or mRNA-1273 (Moderna).

Main Outcomes and Measures   Reports of myocarditis to VAERS were adjudicated and summarized for all age groups. Crude reporting rates were calculated across age and sex strata. Expected rates of myocarditis by age and sex were calculated using 2017-2019 claims data. For persons younger than 30 years of age, medical record reviews and clinician interviews were conducted to describe clinical presentation, diagnostic test results, treatment, and early outcomes.

Results   Among 192 405 448 persons receiving a total of 354 100 845 mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccines during the study period, there were 1991 reports of myocarditis to VAERS and 1626 of these reports met the case definition of myocarditis. Of those with myocarditis, the median age was 21 years (IQR, 16-31 years) and the median time to symptom onset was 2 days (IQR, 1-3 days). Males comprised 82% of the myocarditis cases for whom sex was reported. The crude reporting rates for cases of myocarditis within 7 days after COVID-19 vaccination exceeded the expected rates of myocarditis across multiple age and sex strata. The rates of myocarditis were highest after the second vaccination dose in adolescent males aged 12 to 15 years (70.7 per million doses of the BNT162b2 vaccine), in adolescent males aged 16 to 17 years (105.9 per million doses of the BNT162b2 vaccine), and in young men aged 18 to 24 years (52.4 and 56.3 per million doses of the BNT162b2 vaccine and the mRNA-1273 vaccine, respectively). There were 826 cases of myocarditis among those younger than 30 years of age who had detailed clinical information available; of these cases, 792 of 809 (98%) had elevated troponin levels, 569 of 794 (72%) had abnormal electrocardiogram results, and 223 of 312 (72%) had abnormal cardiac magnetic resonance imaging results. Approximately 96% of persons (784/813) were hospitalized and 87% (577/661) of these had resolution of presenting symptoms by hospital discharge. The most common treatment was nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (589/676; 87%).

Conclusions and Relevance   Based on passive surveillance reporting in the US, the risk of myocarditis after receiving mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccines was increased across multiple age and sex strata and was highest after the second vaccination dose in adolescent males and young men. This risk should be considered in the context of the benefits of COVID-19 vaccination.

Myocarditis is an inflammatory condition of the heart muscle that has a bimodal peak incidence during infancy and adolescence or young adulthood. 1 - 4 The clinical presentation and course of myocarditis is variable, with some patients not requiring treatment and others experiencing severe heart failure that requires subsequent heart transplantation or leads to death. 5 Onset of myocarditis typically follows an inciting process, often a viral illness; however, no antecedent cause is identified in many cases. 6 It has been hypothesized that vaccination can serve as a trigger for myocarditis; however, only the smallpox vaccine has previously been causally associated with myocarditis based on reports among US military personnel, with cases typically occurring 7 to 12 days after vaccination. 7

With the implementation of a large-scale, national COVID-19 vaccination program starting in December 2020, the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the US Food and Drug Administration began monitoring for a number of adverse events of special interest, including myocarditis and pericarditis, in the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), a long-standing national spontaneous reporting (passive surveillance) system. 8 As the reports of myocarditis after COVID-19 vaccination were reported to VAERS, the Clinical Immunization Safety Assessment Project, 9 a collaboration between the CDC and medical research centers, which includes physicians treating infectious diseases and other specialists (eg, cardiologists), consulted on several of the cases. In addition, reports from several countries raised concerns that mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccines may be associated with acute myocarditis. 10 - 15

Given this concern, the aims were to describe reports and confirmed cases of myocarditis initially reported to VAERS after mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccination and to provide estimates of the risk of myocarditis after mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccination based on age, sex, and vaccine type.

VAERS is a US spontaneous reporting (passive surveillance) system that functions as an early warning system for potential vaccine adverse events. 8 Co-administered by the CDC and the US Food and Drug Administration, VAERS accepts reports of all adverse events after vaccination from patients, parents, clinicians, vaccine manufacturers, and others regardless of whether the events could plausibly be associated with receipt of the vaccine. Reports to VAERS include information about the vaccinated person, the vaccine or vaccines administered, and the adverse events experienced by the vaccinated person. The reports to VAERS are then reviewed by third-party professional coders who have been trained in the assignment of Medical Dictionary for Regulatory Activities preferred terms. 16 The coders then assign appropriate terms based on the information available in the reports.

This activity was reviewed by the CDC and was conducted to be consistent with applicable federal law and CDC policy. The activities herein were confirmed to be nonresearch under the Common Rule in accordance with institutional procedures and therefore were not subject to institutional review board requirements. Informed consent was not obtained for this secondary use of existing information; see 45 CFR part 46.102(l)(2), 21 CFR part 56, 42 USC §241(d), 5 USC §552a, and 44 USC §3501 et seq.

The exposure of concern was vaccination with one of the mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccines: the BNT162b2 vaccine (Pfizer-BioNTech) or the mRNA-1273 vaccine (Moderna). During the analytic period, persons aged 12 years or older were eligible for the BNT162b2 vaccine and persons aged 18 years or older were eligible for the mRNA-1273 vaccine. The number of COVID-19 vaccine doses administered during the analytic period was obtained through the CDC’s COVID-19 Data Tracker. 17

The primary outcome was the occurrence of myocarditis and the secondary outcome was pericarditis. Reports to VAERS with these outcomes were initially characterized using the Medical Dictionary for Regulatory Activities preferred terms of myocarditis or pericarditis (specific terms are listed in the eMethods in the Supplement ). After initial review of reports of myocarditis to VAERS and review of the patient’s medical records (when available), the reports were further reviewed by CDC physicians and public health professionals to verify that they met the CDC’s case definition for probable or confirmed myocarditis (descriptions previously published and included in the eMethods in the Supplement ). 18 The CDC’s case definition of probable myocarditis requires the presence of new concerning symptoms, abnormal cardiac test results, and no other identifiable cause of the symptoms and findings. Confirmed cases of myocarditis further require histopathological confirmation of myocarditis or cardiac magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) findings consistent with myocarditis.

Deaths were included only if the individual had met the case definition for confirmed myocarditis and there was no other identifiable cause of death. Individual cases not involving death were included only if the person had met the case definition for probable myocarditis or confirmed myocarditis.

We characterized reports of myocarditis or pericarditis after COVID-19 vaccination that met the CDC’s case definition and were received by VAERS between December 14, 2020 (when COVID-19 vaccines were first publicly available in the US), and August 31, 2021, by age, sex, race, ethnicity, and vaccine type; data were processed by VAERS as of September 30, 2021. Race and ethnicity were optional fixed categories available by self-identification at the time of vaccination or by the individual filing a VAERS report. Race and ethnicity were included to provide the most complete baseline description possible for individual reports; however, further analyses were not stratified by race and ethnicity due to the high percentage of missing data. Reports of pericarditis with evidence of potential myocardial involvement were included in the review of reports of myocarditis. The eFigure in the Supplement outlines the categorization of the reports of myocarditis and pericarditis reviewed.

Further analyses were conducted only for myocarditis because of the preponderance of those reports to VAERS, in Clinical Immunization Safety Assessment Project consultations, and in published articles. 10 - 12 , 19 - 21 Crude reporting rates for myocarditis during a 7-day risk interval were calculated using the number of reports of myocarditis to VAERS per million doses of COVID-19 vaccine administered during the analytic period and stratified by age, sex, vaccination dose (first, second, or unknown), and vaccine type. Expected rates of myocarditis by age and sex were calculated using 2017-2019 data from the IBM MarketScan Commercial Research Database. This database contains individual-level, deidentified, inpatient and outpatient medical and prescription drug claims, and enrollment information submitted to IBM Watson Health by large employers and health plans. The data were accessed using version 4.0 of the IBM MarketScan Treatment Pathways analytic platform. Age- and sex-specific rates were calculated by determining the number of individuals with myocarditis ( International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems, Tenth Revision [ICD-10] codes B33.20, B33.22, B33.24, I40.0, I40.1, I40.8, I40.9, or I51.4) 22 identified during an inpatient encounter in 2017-2019 relative to the number of individuals of similar age and sex who were continually enrolled during the year in which the myocarditis-related hospitalization occurred; individuals with any diagnosis of myocarditis prior to that year were excluded. Given the limitations of the IBM MarketScan Commercial Research Database to capture enrollees aged 65 years or older, an expected rate for myocarditis was not calculated for this population. A 95% CI was calculated using Poisson distribution in SAS version 9.4 (SAS Institute Inc) for each expected rate of myocarditis and for each observed rate in a strata with at least 1 case.

In cases of probable or confirmed myocarditis among those younger than 30 years of age, their clinical course was then summarized to the extent possible based on medical review and clinician interviews. This clinical course included presenting symptoms, diagnostic test results, treatment, and early outcomes (abstraction form appears in the eMethods in the Supplement ). 23

When applicable, missing data were delineated in the results or the numbers with complete data were listed. No assumptions or imputations were made regarding missing data. Any percentages that were calculated included only those cases of myocarditis with adequate data to calculate the percentages.

Between December 14, 2020, and August 31, 2021, 192 405 448 individuals older than 12 years of age received a total of 354 100 845 mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccines. VAERS received 1991 reports of myocarditis (391 of which also included pericarditis) after receipt of at least 1 dose of mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccine (eTable 1 in the Supplement ) and 684 reports of pericarditis without the presence of myocarditis (eTable 2 in the Supplement ).

Of the 1991 reports of myocarditis, 1626 met the CDC’s case definition for probable or confirmed myocarditis ( Table 1 ). There were 208 reports that did not meet the CDC’s case definition for myocarditis and 157 reports that required more information to perform adjudication (eTable 3 in the Supplement ). Of the 1626 reports that met the CDC’s case definition for myocarditis, 1195 (73%) were younger than 30 years of age, 543 (33%) were younger than 18 years of age, and the median age was 21 years (IQR, 16-31 years) ( Figure 1 ). Of the reports of myocarditis with dose information, 82% (1265/1538) occurred after the second vaccination dose. Of those with a reported dose and time to symptom onset, the median time from vaccination to symptom onset was 3 days (IQR, 1-8 days) after the first vaccination dose and 74% (187/254) of myocarditis events occurred within 7 days. After the second vaccination dose, the median time to symptom onset was 2 days (IQR, 1-3 days) and 90% (1081/1199) of myocarditis events occurred within 7 days ( Figure 2 ).

Males comprised 82% (1334/1625) of the cases of myocarditis for whom sex was reported. The largest proportions of cases of myocarditis were among White persons (non-Hispanic or ethnicity not reported; 69% [914/1330]) and Hispanic persons (of all races; 17% [228/1330]). Among persons younger than 30 years of age, there were no confirmed cases of myocarditis in those who died after mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccination without another identifiable cause and there was 1 probable case of myocarditis but there was insufficient information available for a thorough investigation. At the time of data review, there were 2 reports of death in persons younger than 30 years of age with potential myocarditis that remain under investigation and are not included in the case counts.

Symptom onset of myocarditis was within 7 days after vaccination for 947 reports of individuals who received the BNT162b2 vaccine and for 382 reports of individuals who received the mRNA-1273 vaccine. The rates of myocarditis varied by vaccine type, sex, age, and first or second vaccination dose ( Table 2 ). The reporting rates of myocarditis were highest after the second vaccination dose in adolescent males aged 12 to 15 years (70.73 [95% CI, 61.68-81.11] per million doses of the BNT162b2 vaccine), in adolescent males aged 16 to 17 years (105.86 [95% CI, 91.65-122.27] per million doses of the BNT162b2 vaccine), and in young men aged 18 to 24 years (52.43 [95% CI, 45.56-60.33] per million doses of the BNT162b2 vaccine and 56.31 [95% CI, 47.08-67.34] per million doses of the mRNA-1273 vaccine). The lower estimate of the 95% CI for reporting rates of myocarditis in adolescent males and young men exceeded the upper bound of the expected rates after the first vaccination dose with the BNT162b2 vaccine in those aged 12 to 24 years, after the second vaccination dose with the BNT162b2 vaccine in those aged 12 to 49 years, after the first vaccination dose with the mRNA-1273 vaccine in those aged 18 to 39 years, and after the second vaccination dose with the mRNA-1273 vaccine in those aged 18 to 49 years.

The reporting rates of myocarditis in females were lower than those in males across all age strata younger than 50 years of age. The reporting rates of myocarditis were highest after the second vaccination dose in adolescent females aged 12 to 15 years (6.35 [95% CI, 4.05-9.96] per million doses of the BNT162b2 vaccine), in adolescent females aged 16 to 17 years (10.98 [95% CI, 7.16-16.84] per million doses of the BNT162b2 vaccine), in young women aged 18 to 24 years (6.87 [95% CI, 4.27-11.05] per million doses of the mRNA-1273 vaccine), and in women aged 25 to 29 years (8.22 [95% CI, 5.03-13.41] per million doses of the mRNA-1273 vaccine). The lower estimate of the 95% CI for reporting rates of myocarditis in females exceeded the upper bound of the expected rates after the second vaccination dose with the BNT162b2 vaccine in those aged 12 to 29 years and after the second vaccination dose with the mRNA-1273 vaccine in those aged 18 to 29 years.

Among the 1372 reports of myocarditis in persons younger than 30 years of age, 1305 were able to be adjudicated, with 92% (1195/1305) meeting the CDC’s case definition. Of these, chart abstractions or medical interviews were completed for 69% (826/1195) ( Table 3 ). The symptoms commonly reported in the verified cases of myocarditis in persons younger than 30 years of age included chest pain, pressure, or discomfort (727/817; 89%) and dyspnea or shortness of breath (242/817; 30%). Troponin levels were elevated in 98% (792/809) of the cases of myocarditis. The electrocardiogram result was abnormal in 72% (569/794) of cases of myocarditis. Of the patients who had received a cardiac MRI, 72% (223/312) had abnormal findings consistent with myocarditis. The echocardiogram results were available for 721 cases of myocarditis; of these, 84 (12%) demonstrated a notable decreased left ventricular ejection fraction (<50%). Among the 676 cases for whom treatment data were available, 589 (87%) received nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs. Intravenous immunoglobulin and glucocorticoids were each used in 12% of the cases of myocarditis (78/676 and 81/676, respectively). Intensive therapies such as vasoactive medications (12 cases of myocarditis) and intubation or mechanical ventilation (2 cases) were rare. There were no verified cases of myocarditis requiring a heart transplant, extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, or a ventricular assist device. Of the 96% (784/813) of cases of myocarditis who were hospitalized, 98% (747/762) were discharged from the hospital at time of review. In 87% (577/661) of discharged cases of myocarditis, there was resolution of the presenting symptoms by hospital discharge.

In this review of reports to VAERS between December 2020 and August 2021, myocarditis was identified as a rare but serious adverse event that can occur after mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccination, particularly in adolescent males and young men. However, this increased risk must be weighed against the benefits of COVID-19 vaccination. 18

Compared with cases of non–vaccine-associated myocarditis, the reports of myocarditis to VAERS after mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccination were similar in demographic characteristics but different in their acute clinical course. First, the greater frequency noted among vaccine recipients aged 12 to 29 years vs those aged 30 years or older was similar to the age distribution seen in typical cases of myocarditis. 2 , 4 This pattern may explain why cases of myocarditis were not discovered until months after initial Emergency Use Authorization of the vaccines in the US (ie, until the vaccines were widely available to younger persons). Second, the sex distribution in cases of myocarditis after COVID-19 vaccination was similar to that seen in typical cases of myocarditis; there is a strong male predominance for both conditions. 2 , 4

However, the onset of myocarditis symptoms after exposure to a potential immunological trigger was shorter for COVID-19 vaccine–associated cases of myocarditis than is typical for myocarditis cases diagnosed after a viral illness. 24 - 26 Cases of myocarditis reported after COVID-19 vaccination were typically diagnosed within days of vaccination, whereas cases of typical viral myocarditis can often have indolent courses with symptoms sometimes present for weeks to months after a trigger if the cause is ever identified. 1 The major presenting symptoms appeared to resolve faster in cases of myocarditis after COVID-19 vaccination than in typical viral cases of myocarditis. Even though almost all individuals with cases of myocarditis were hospitalized and clinically monitored, they typically experienced symptomatic recovery after receiving only pain management. In contrast, typical viral cases of myocarditis can have a more variable clinical course. For example, up to 6% of typical viral myocarditis cases in adolescents require a heart transplant or result in mortality. 27

In the current study, the initial evaluation and treatment of COVID-19 vaccine–associated myocarditis cases was similar to that of typical myocarditis cases. 28 - 31 Initial evaluation usually included measurement of troponin level, electrocardiography, and echocardiography. 1 Cardiac MRI was often used for diagnostic purposes and also for possible prognostic purposes. 32 , 33 Supportive care was a mainstay of treatment, with specific cardiac or intensive care therapies as indicated by the patient’s clinical status.

Long-term outcome data are not yet available for COVID-19 vaccine–associated myocarditis cases. The CDC has started active follow-up surveillance in adolescents and young adults to assess the health and functional status and cardiac outcomes at 3 to 6 months in probable and confirmed cases of myocarditis reported to VAERS after COVID-19 vaccination. 34 For patients with myocarditis, the American Heart Association and the American College of Cardiology guidelines advise that patients should be instructed to refrain from competitive sports for 3 to 6 months, and that documentation of a normal electrocardiogram result, ambulatory rhythm monitoring, and an exercise test should be obtained prior to resumption of sports. 35 The use of cardiac MRI is unclear, but it may be useful in evaluating the progression or resolution of myocarditis in those with abnormalities on the baseline cardiac MRI. 36 Further doses of mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccines should be deferred, but may be considered in select circumstances. 37

This study has several limitations. First, although clinicians are required to report serious adverse events after COVID-19 vaccination, including all events leading to hospitalization, VAERS is a passive reporting system. As such, the reports of myocarditis to VAERS may be incomplete, and the quality of the information reported is variable. Missing data for sex, vaccination dose number, and race and ethnicity were not uncommon in the reports received; history of prior SARS-CoV-2 infection also was not known. Furthermore, as a passive system, VAERS data are subject to reporting biases in that both underreporting and overreporting are possible. 38 Given the high verification rate of reports of myocarditis to VAERS after mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccination, underreporting is more likely. Therefore, the actual rates of myocarditis per million doses of vaccine are likely higher than estimated.

Second, efforts by CDC investigators to obtain medical records or interview physicians were not always successful despite the special allowance for sharing information with the CDC under the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996. 39 This challenge limited the ability to perform case adjudication and complete investigations for some reports of myocarditis, although efforts are still ongoing when feasible.

Third, the data from vaccination administration were limited to what is reported to the CDC and thus may be incomplete, particularly with regard to demographics.

Fourth, calculation of expected rates from the IBM MarketScan Commercial Research Database relied on administrative data via the use of ICD-10 codes and there was no opportunity for clinical review. Furthermore, these data had limited information regarding the Medicare population; thus expected rates for those older than 65 years of age were not calculated. However, it is expected that the rates in those older than 65 years of age would not be higher than the rates in those aged 50 to 64 years. 4

Based on passive surveillance reporting in the US, the risk of myocarditis after receiving mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccines was increased across multiple age and sex strata and was highest after the second vaccination dose in adolescent males and young men. This risk should be considered in the context of the benefits of COVID-19 vaccination.

Corresponding Author: Matthew E. Oster, MD, MPH, US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 1600 Clifton Rd, Atlanta, GA 30333 ( [email protected] ).

Correction: This article was corrected March 21, 2022, to change “pericarditis” to “myocarditis” in the first row, first column of eTable 1 in the Supplement.

Accepted for Publication: December 16, 2021.

Author Contributions: Drs Oster and Su had full access to all of the data in the study and take responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis.

Concept and design: Oster, Shay, Su, Creech, Edwards, Dendy, Schlaudecker, Woo, Shimabukuro.

Acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data: Oster, Shay, Su, Gee, Creech, Broder, Edwards, Soslow, Schlaudecker, Lang, Barnett, Ruberg, Smith, Campbell, Lopes, Sperling, Baumblatt, Thompson, Marquez, Strid, Woo, Pugsley, Reagan-Steiner, DeStefano, Shimabukuro.

Drafting of the manuscript: Oster, Shay, Su, Gee, Creech, Marquez, Strid, Woo, Shimabukuro.

Critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content: Oster, Shay, Su, Creech, Broder, Edwards, Soslow, Dendy, Schlaudecker, Lang, Barnett, Ruberg, Smith, Campbell, Lopes, Sperling, Baumblatt, Thompson, Pugsley, Reagan-Steiner, DeStefano, Shimabukuro.

Statistical analysis: Oster, Su, Marquez, Strid, Woo, Shimabukuro.

Obtained funding: Edwards, DeStefano.

Administrative, technical, or material support: Oster, Gee, Creech, Broder, Edwards, Soslow, Schlaudecker, Smith, Baumblatt, Thompson, Reagan-Steiner, DeStefano.

Supervision: Su, Edwards, Soslow, Dendy, Schlaudecker, Campbell, Sperling, DeStefano, Shimabukuro.

Conflict of Interest Disclosures: Dr Creech reported receiving grants from the National Institutes of Health for the Moderna and Janssen clinical trials and receiving personal fees from Astellas and Horizon. Dr Edwards reported receiving grants from the National Institutes of Health; receiving personal fees from BioNet, IBM, X-4 Pharma, Seqirus, Roche, Pfizer, Merck, Moderna, and Sanofi; and receiving compensation for being the associate editor of Clinical Infectious Diseases . Dr Soslow reported receiving personal fees from Esperare. Dr Schlaudecker reported receiving grants from Pfizer and receiving personal fees from Sanofi Pasteur. Drs Barnett, Ruberg, and Smith reported receiving grants from Pfizer. Dr Lopes reported receiving personal fees from Bayer, Boehringer Ingleheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Daiichi Sankyo, GlaxoSmithKline, Medtronic, Merck, Pfizer, Portola, and Sanofi and receiving grants from Bristol Myers Squibb, GlaxoSmithKline, Medtronic, Pfizer, and Sanofi. No other disclosures were reported.

Funding/Support: This work was supported by contracts 200-2012-53709 (Boston Medical Center), 200-2012-53661 (Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center), 200-2012-53663 (Duke University), and 200-2012-50430 (Vanderbilt University Medical Center) with the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Clinical Immunization Safety Assessment Project.

Role of the Funder/Sponsor: The CDC provided funding via the Clinical Immunization Safety Assessment Project to Drs Creech, Edwards, Soslow, Dendy, Schlaudecker, Lang, Barnett, Ruberg, Smith, Campbell, and Lopes. The authors affiliated with the CDC along with the other coauthors conducted the investigations; performed collection, management, analysis, and interpretation of the data; were involved in the preparation, review, and approval of the manuscript; and made the decision to submit the manuscript for publication.

Disclaimer: The findings and conclusions in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official position of the CDC or the US Food and Drug Administration. Mention of a product or company name is for identification purposes only and does not constitute endorsement by the CDC or the US Food and Drug Administration.

Additional Contributions: We thank the following CDC staff who contributed to this article without compensation outside their normal salaries (in alphabetical order and contribution specified in parenthesis at end of each list of names): Nickolas Agathis, MD, MPH, Stephen R. Benoit, MD, MPH, Beau B. Bruce, MD, PhD, Abigail L. Carlson, MD, MPH, Meredith G. Dixon, MD, Jonathan Duffy, MD, MPH, Charles Duke, MD, MPH, Charles Edge, MSN, MS, Robyn Neblett Fanfair, MD, MPH, Nathan W. Furukawa, MD, MPH, Gavin Grant, MD, MPH, Grace Marx, MD, MPH, Maureen J. Miller, MD, MPH, Pedro Moro, MD, MPH, Meredith Oakley, DVM, MPH, Kia Padgett, MPH, BSN, RN, Janice Perez-Padilla, MPH, BSN, RN, Robert Perry, MD, MPH, Nimia Reyes, MD, MPH, Ernest E. Smith, MD, MPH&TM, David Sniadack, MD, MPH, Pamela Tucker, MD, Edward C. Weiss, MD, MPH, Erin Whitehouse, PhD, MPH, RN, Pascale M. Wortley, MD, MPH, and Rachael Zacks, MD (for clinical investigations and interviews); Amelia Jazwa, MSPH, Tara Johnson, MPH, MS, and Jamila Shields, MPH (for project coordination); Charles Licata, PhD, and Bicheng Zhang, MS (for data acquisition and organization); Charles E. Rose, PhD (for statistical consultation); and Scott D. Grosse, PhD (for calculation of expected rates of myocarditis). We also thank the clinical staff who cared for these patients and reported the adverse events to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System.

• Register for email alerts with links to free full-text articles
• Access PDFs of free articles
• Manage your interests
• Save searches and receive search alerts

• DOI: 10.1177/00472875241261607
• Corpus ID: 271524228

How to Establish Credibility? The Influence of Expression Manner on Tourist Information Adoption

• Chunxiao Li , Hongxu Liu , Lin Li
• Published in Journal of Travel Research 26 July 2024

101 References

Reducing resistance to sponsorship disclosure: the role of experiential versus material posts, overcoming listener skepticism: costly signaling in communication increases perceived honesty., effects of spatial distance on consumers' review effort, tourist perception of the value of time on holidays: implications for the time use rebound effect and sustainable travel practice, nanoinfluencer marketing: how message features affect credibility and behavioral intentions, the classification of online consumer reviews: a systematic literature review and integrative framework, identifying local bias on peer-to-peer rental platforms, online reviews of credence service providers: what do consumers evaluate, do other consumers believe the reviews, and are interventions needed, antecedents of trust and adoption intention toward artificially intelligent recommendation systems in travel planning: a heuristic–systematic model, tourism and trust: theoretical reflections, related papers.

Showing 1 through 3 of 0 Related Papers

Apple used Google's chips to train two AI models, research paper shows

• Medium Text

Sign up here.

Reporting by Max A. Cherney in San Francisco; Editing by Matthew Lewis and Varun H K

Our Standards: The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles. , opens new tab

Intel plans to cut thousands of jobs to finance recovery, Bloomberg News reports

Intel plans to cut thousands of jobs to finance a recovery and cope with eroding market share, Bloomberg News reported on Tuesday, citing people familiar with the matter.

Israel News

Israel news features every important moment from the Jewish State involving politics, celebrities, and innovation. This is the hard hitting, fast paced news that represents the Jewish nation in an un bias frame so that truth about Israel is represented in the media. There is no other substitute for the best Israel news on the web...

Israel Politics

Israel sports, israel culture, benjamin netanyahu, defense news, crime in israel.

Medal optimism on the water for Israelis

Amid the Sde Teiman riots, we must balance justice and emotion in times of turmoil

Shin Bet worker indicted for disseminating secret information

Plan for Israel 2050: Country to be divided into 28 small regions

Sabina's new album explores her journey in israel towards gratitude, connection, and belonging, ‘incentive to set foot in the galilee’: hezbollah official speaks on israeli retaliation.

Hezbollah vows to respond forcefully to any Israeli attack, dismissing international pleas for restraint amid rising regional tensions.

'Our true victory': Rafael Aronov on battling Hamas to conquering the Octogon

From Hamas battles to MMA triumphs, Rafael Aronov recounts his fight for Israel in and out of the Octagon.

IDF military police investigates abuse claims amid controversial arrests of reservists

Israeli military police prosecutors contacted Gaza Palestinians released from Sde Teiman prison to investigate possible abuse by IDF soldiers.

Ad campaign and search day planned for missing girl Haymanot Kasau

Kasau, who immigrated with her family from Ethiopia to Israel and lived in the absorption center in Safed, was last seen in February.

Police criticize IDF for poor communication prior to Sde Teiman riots

Police are upset with the IDF for not properly communicating about Monday’s riots at Sde Teiman base, leading to inadequate preparation and a delayed response.

Rape survivor Michal Deutsch slams MK Limor Son Har-Melech for double standard on rape legislation

Son Har-Melech responded to Deutsch by explaining that the criticism against her and her colleague, MK Yulia Malinovsky, was driven by left-wing groups

Gallant to Netanyahu: Check if Ben-Gvir blocked police reinforcement in IDF base riot

Defense Minister Yoav Gallant has called for an investigation into whether Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir delayed police reinforcements during IDF base breaches by protestors.

Erdogan will send Turkish forces if Israel enters Lebanon - former envoy

Dr. Alon Liel predicts Erdogan will indirectly support Palestinians through aid and smuggling, not direct military action against Israel.

Israel Police arrest four in Ben-Gvir's ministry for firearm license bribery

The suspects include a licensing official at the National Security Ministry, as well as three officials who worked to collect firearm license applications and approve them.

MUZA, Eretz Israel Museum in Tel Aviv debuts exhibit on Mizrahi fashion brand Maskit

Maskit was founded by Ruth Dayan, the wife of defense minister Moshe Dayan.

By subscribing I accept the terms of use and privacy policy

'Highest price ever for killing one person': Houthis celebrate strike as Yemenis suffer

'Dismantling Hamas from within': IDF uncovers trove of Hamas secrets

Voight: My daughter Angelina Jolie was influenced by antisemitic people - regarding Gaza

Iran has something to fear: Israeli strike on Yemen shows IAF can reach Tehran

Operation 'Outstretched Arm' demonstrates Israel's F-35's stealth striking capabilities