Your cart is currently empty!
SayPro Source Evaluation Rubric: A rubric that provides a scoring system for evaluating sources based on predefined criteria.
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.
SayPro Source Evaluation Rubric
This rubric provides a scoring system for evaluating sources based on predefined criteria. It helps participants systematically assess sources on factors such as credibility, relevance, authority, bias, and accuracy. Each category is rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with 1 being poor and 5 being excellent.
SayPro Source Evaluation Rubric
| Criteria | 1 (Poor) | 2 (Fair) | 3 (Good) | 4 (Very Good) | 5 (Excellent) | Score |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Author’s Credentials | Author has no relevant credentials or expertise in the field. | Author has minimal relevant credentials. | Author has some credentials but not extensive experience. | Author has strong credentials and relevant experience. | Author is a recognized expert with advanced credentials and extensive experience in the field. | ______ |
| Source Type | Source type is unreliable (e.g., blog, personal website). | Source is from a less reputable source (e.g., general website). | Source is from a neutral or moderately reputable publisher (e.g., some journals, government reports). | Source is from a respected academic or scholarly publisher or journal. | Source is from a highly reputable academic or scholarly publisher/journal with peer review. | ______ |
| Publication Date | Published more than 10 years ago, outdated for the research topic. | Published 5-10 years ago, possibly outdated. | Published within the last 5-7 years, somewhat current. | Published within the last 3-5 years, relevant and current. | Published within the last 2-3 years, highly current and relevant. | ______ |
| Relevance to Topic | Source has little to no relevance to the research topic. | Source has limited relevance to the research topic. | Source is moderately relevant to the research topic. | Source is highly relevant to the research topic. | Source is directly on point and crucial to the research topic. | ______ |
| Bias and Objectivity | The source is highly biased or supports an agenda. | The source shows some bias or partiality. | The source presents a balanced view with some minor bias. | The source is objective with a small degree of bias. | The source is completely unbiased and objective. | ______ |
| Accuracy and Reliability | The source contains false or unverified information. | The source has some factual inaccuracies or unreliable data. | The source presents mostly accurate information with few errors. | The source is accurate with reliable data and references. | The source is highly accurate with verifiable, reliable information. | ______ |
| Citations and References | The source lacks citations or references. | Few references, with some being unreliable or missing. | References are provided but some may not be credible. | References are from credible sources, but some are incomplete. | All references are from credible, reliable sources, and citations are comprehensive. | ______ |
| Ethical Integrity | The source shows signs of unethical practices, such as plagiarism or bias. | The source raises concerns about ethical integrity. | The source is ethically sound but lacks full transparency. | The source adheres to ethical standards with full transparency. | The source is ethically exemplary, with clear ethical practices and transparency. | ______ |
Total Score Calculation
- Excellent (35–40): The source is credible, relevant, and highly trustworthy. It is ideal for inclusion in academic work.
- Very Good (30–34): The source is credible and relevant but may have minor limitations. It is suitable for academic use with caution.
- Good (24–29): The source is acceptable but has notable flaws in one or more areas. Further scrutiny may be required before use.
- Fair (18–23): The source has several weaknesses in credibility, relevance, or accuracy. It should be used with caution and only if no better options are available.
- Poor (7–17): The source is unreliable or unsuitable for academic use. Avoid using it.
Notes and Recommendations:
- Strengths: _______________________________________________________________________
- Weaknesses: ___________________________________________________________________
- Suggestions for Improvement or Alternatives: ___________________________________________________
Instructions for Use:
- Evaluate each source based on the criteria provided, assigning scores between 1 and 5 for each category.
- After scoring each category, sum the scores to determine the overall quality of the source.
- Use this rubric as a guideline to assess the quality and reliability of sources when conducting academic or professional research.
This Source Evaluation Rubric helps ensure that only credible, reliable, and relevant sources are selected for research, improving the quality of academic writing and ensuring ethical research practices.
- 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
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.