CS105 Homework #2

This page will help you to understand what constitutes a reliable research source for a scholarly paper and what should be included in a formal Bibliography.

A. Bibliographical Data. Each source in a bibliography should generally include the following bibliographic data:

Author's name
Title of resource
Name of publication (if any)
Publisher (if different from author)
Date of original publication
Date of most recent update (if different from original publication)
Date that *you* accessed this material
URL address of link to material used (Please Note: you should always provide the *full* link to your specific article or portion of page used, not a link to a general/initial page that requires links to get to your article.)

B. Reliable Source Analysis. For each reference in your Bibliography, provide the following 5-part analysis of source reliability, which is organized in order of importance. While it is understood that not every good source will "pass" every part of this 5-part test, it is important to analyze each part before making a final determination of reliability. For the most part, news sources written by secondary sources (people who are not active participants in the research themselves), are not generally considered scholarly sources. Therefore, most references should not be news sources. (Since it is sometimes difficult to find current sources from non-news sources, supplementing your research with news sources may be acceptable. However, you should always remain cognizant that such sources are frequently suspect, or at least less reliable, than scholarly sources.)

         1.   Authorship:    Who is the author? Is s/he known and available? How can s/he be reached? (Note: If the actual author is unknown, you may consider the organization or sponsor as the author; however, please recognize that it is generally more difficult to produce appropriate credentials for an organization than for an individual.)
        2.    Credentials:    What are the author's credentials? (The actual writer is at issue here, not the publication. This is why journalists are generally less reliable ... they may have journalism credentials, but rarely do they have credentials relevant to the actual subject of the article.) Academic or other recognized credentials are preferable, but experience is also relevant. If the only credential is "recognized expertise in the field of study," be sure you can adequately support such a claim. (E.g. recognized by whom, specifically? Be sure you discuss or link to a statement of support by others who are considered recognized experts themselves. A general claim of "good reputation" is not sufficient indicia of credibility.)
        3.    Bias:    Does the author (or publication) have an agenda or interest? If so, how much is this agenda likely to affect the content of your source? Note that the primary issue here is likely bias of the author, not whether the article appears to take sides. (Bias does not automatically make a resource unreliable, but it is important to consider its implications.)
        4.    Currency:    How recently was this source published or updated? Is this date appropriately current considering what material you are presenting from the source?
        5.    History/Stability:    What is this author or publication's past history? How long has he/she/it been around? (For some internet sources, this may be difficult to determine, but do the best you can.)

C. Result of Analysis. Based on your 5-part reliability analysis, categorize each source as "Highly Reliable," "Moderately Reliable" or "Unreliable" for scholarly purposes, together with a brief explanation for your decision.