How to Evaluate Information
 Interactive webpage that highlights and describes common components of a scholarly article. |
 Learn some Internet search tips and strategies. |
 Describes the peer-review process. Courtesy of NCSU Libraries |
 Learn to differentiate between popular and scholarly sources. |
 Distinguish between primary and secondary sources and use them appropriately in your research. |
| Title | Description | Format |
|---|---|---|
| CRRAPP Criteria Rubric | You’ll get better grades and learn more if you use high-quality dependable sources of information. If you’re not sure whether or not you should use a particular resource, ask yourself the following questions. |
 |
| Evaluating Articles | Provides a lists of considerations for students to keep in mind as they determine whether or not an article from a journal, magazine, newspaper or website is appropriate for the task at hand. |
|
| Evaluating Information | Lists and describes criteria to help evaluate print or online information. |
|
| Scholarly Articles: What to Expect | Learn about the kinds of information provided in scholarly articles, how to find them and weave them into a project. |
|
| Website Evaluation | Lists criteria you can use to evaluate websites, and four specific steps you can take to help you evaluate whether or not a website is appropriate for use in college-level classes. |
|
| What is the Difference between Popular and Scholarly Articles? | Explains the difference between articles from popular magazines and scholarly journals, with examples of each. |
|
| What's a Scientific Article? | How to determine whether or not an article is reporting the findings of original scientific research. Lists characteristics of most scientific papers, including easily-recognizable subsections such as "Methodology." |
|
| Wikipedia: The Good and the Ugly | Everyone knows how useful Wikipedia can be when beginning a research project, but since anyone can edit the articles, it can be problematic for academic use. This handout outlines both "good" and "bad" academic uses of Wikipedia. |
|
