SayProApp SayProSites

SayPro Education and Training

SayPro Source Evaluation Checklist Template: A structured template that guides participants in assessing the credibility, relevance, and authority of sources.

Email: info@saypro.online Call/WhatsApp: + 27 84 313 7407

SayPro is a Global Solutions Provider working with Individuals, Governments, Corporate Businesses, Municipalities, International Institutions. SayPro works across various Industries, Sectors providing wide range of solutions.

Written by

Linda Janet Tivane

in

SayPro Source Evaluation Checklist Template

This structured template is designed to guide participants in evaluating the credibility, relevance, and authority of sources used in academic and professional research. It can be customized based on specific research needs or guidelines.

SayPro Source Evaluation Checklist

Source Title:

Author(s) / Creator(s):

Source Type:

  • Journal Article
  • Book
  • Website
  • Report
  • Conference Paper
  • Other: _____________________

1. Credibility

a) Author’s Credentials:

  • Is the author(s) an expert in the field?
    • Yes
    • No
    • Not clear
  • Author’s qualifications, affiliations, and previous works:

b) Publisher/Source Reputation:

  • Is the source from a reputable publisher, academic journal, or institution?
    • Yes
    • No
    • Not sure
  • Publisher’s name: ________________________________________

c) Peer-Reviewed:

  • Has the source been peer-reviewed or critically evaluated by experts in the field?
    • Yes
    • No
    • Not applicable

d) Source Date/Publication Date:

  • When was the source published? Is the publication date recent enough for your research?
    • _______________ (Date)
    • Recent enough (within the last 5 years)
    • Outdated (more than 5 years ago)

2. Relevance

a) Topic Alignment:

  • Does the source directly address your research topic or question?
    • Yes
    • No
    • Partially
  • How does the source relate to your research focus?

b) Depth of Information:

  • Does the source provide sufficient depth, detail, and evidence to support your research needs?
    • Yes
    • No
    • Somewhat

c) Scope of the Source:

  • Is the source comprehensive or does it focus on a narrow aspect of the topic?
    • Comprehensive
    • Narrow Focus
    • Unclear

3. Authority

a) Author’s Qualifications:

  • Does the author have recognized expertise in the subject area (e.g., academic credentials, professional experience)?
    • Yes
    • No
    • Not clear
  • Author’s position and professional background:

b) Citation Count (if applicable):

  • Has the source been frequently cited by other reputable works?
    • Yes
    • No
    • Not applicable

c) Publisher’s Authority:

  • Is the publisher or organization authoritative in the subject field? (e.g., universities, respected institutions, or well-established publishers)
    • Yes
    • No
    • Not clear

4. Bias and Objectivity

a) Potential Bias:

  • Does the source demonstrate any clear bias or support a particular agenda?
    • Yes
    • No
    • Unclear
  • Evidence of bias (e.g., political, financial, ideological):

b) Objective Presentation of Information:

  • Is the information presented in an objective manner or does it appear to be one-sided?
    • Objective
    • Biased
    • Mixed

5. Accuracy and Reliability

a) Verifiable Information:

  • Are the claims or data presented in the source supported by verifiable evidence or references?
    • Yes
    • No
    • Partially
  • Are the sources of data clearly cited within the source itself?
    • Yes
    • No
    • Not applicable

b) Accuracy of Data:

  • Can the information be cross-checked with other reputable sources or is there a discrepancy?
    • Accurate
    • Inaccurate
    • Partially Accurate
  • Cross-checking sources (if applicable):

6. Ethics and Academic Integrity

a) Ethical Considerations:

  • Is the source free from unethical practices, such as plagiarism, fabrication, or manipulation of data?
    • Yes
    • No
    • Unclear
  • Does the author acknowledge any conflicts of interest or financial support from interested parties?
    • Yes
    • No
    • Not applicable

7. Conclusion

  • Overall Evaluation:
    • Credible, relevant, and authoritative source
    • Credible but limited relevance or authority
    • Not a suitable source for my research
  • Notes and Recommendations:

This checklist serves as a comprehensive guide to help participants assess sources from multiple angles. By using this tool, participants can make informed decisions about which sources to include in their research projects, ensuring they use high-quality, relevant, and credible materials that adhere to ethical standards.

  • Neftaly Malatjie | CEO | SayPro
  • Email: info@saypro.online
  • Call: + 27 84 313 7407
  • Website: www.saypro.online

SayPro – Shop– App – Jobs – Courses – Classified – Agri– School – Health – Events – Corporate – CharityNPO – Staff – Sports

Comments

Leave a Reply

More posts

Layer 1
Login Categories
SayPro Communication and Soft Skills Training Course Category