Literature Reviews

How to evaluate a source

Consider the more obvious elements of the paper:

• Is its title clear? Does it accurately reflect the content of the paper?
• Is the abstract well-structured (providing an accurate, albeit brief, description of the purpose, method, theoretical background of the research, as well as its results or conclusions?)
• What does their bibliography look like? For example, if most of their references are quite old despite being a newer paper, you should see if they provide an explanation for that in the paper itself. If not, you may want to consider why they do not have any newer sources informing their research.
• Is the journal its published in prestigious and reputable, or does the journal stand to gain something from publishing this paper? You may need to consider the biases of not only the author, but the publisher!

Evaluate the content:

• Look for identifiable gaps in their method, as well as potential problems with their interpretation of the data.
• Look for any obvious manipulations of the data.
• Do they themselves identify any biases or limitations, or do you notice any that they haven’t identified? 

You are not just looking at what they are saying, but also at what they have NOT said. If they didn’t identify a clear gap or bias, why not? What does that say about the rest of the paper? If at all possible, you may want to see if you can identify where the funding for their study came from if you’re noticing these gaps, in case it is possible to spot a conflict of interest.

How do you analyze your sources?

It can be daunting to logically analyze the argument. If they are only showing one side and not addressing the topic from multiple perspectives, you may want to consider why, and if you feel they do a fair job of trying to present a holistic argument – if they don’t bring up conflicting information and demonstrate how they argument works against it, why not? You can also look for key red flags like:

1. logical fallacies: mistakes in your reasoning that undermine the logic of the argument – usually identified due to a lack of evidence
2. slippery slopes: a conclusion based on the idea that if one thing happens, it will trigger a series of other small steps leading to a drastic conclusion
3. post hoc ergo propter hoc: a conclusion that says that if one event occurs after another, that it was the first event that caused the second due to chronology rather than evidence
4. circular arguments: these are arguments that simply restate their premises rather than providing proof
5. moral equivalence: this compares minor actions with major atrocities and concludes that both are equally immoral
6. ad hominem: these are arguments that attack the character of the person making the argument rather than the argument itself

This is just a sample of the types or red flags that occur in academic writing. For more examples or further explanation, consult Purdue Owl’s academic writing guide, “Logic in Argumentative Writing.”