What's the problem?
- Although your written analysis synthesises information from primary and secondary sources, any facts and figures you provide and any assertion you make must be backed up by reliable sources.
- All sources must be freely and readily accessible without restriction to all Reviewers and Readers globally.
Striving for credibility and truthfulness is essential in the current age of information. Hence, you must demonstrate some academic rigor and guarantee that all your statements are based on proven and vetted facts.
What You Must Do
Select a maximum of 10 high-quality, publicly available sources.
Ensure they come from diversified institutions to foster the plurality of opinions.
Choose sources that can be read in English. This means that you can add non-English sources, provided they can be translated into English. Here is the how-to guide:
Open this link: http://itools.com/tool/google-...Add the URL of the web page you would like to translate. Make sure to select the correct recipient language, "From", (e.g. Spanish, Mandarin, Hindu…) and pick English as the target language, "To".The translated source will appear in a new window (example). Use the URL of this new window to add to your analysis.
Caution:Reviewers retain the right to refuse non-English sources if the translation is not appropriate.This translation tool only accepts web pages, not PDFs.
Choose sources that are no more than 3 years old, except under certain circumstances.
To ensure your sources are trustworthy, run the CRAAP test (more on how to assess credibility here).
CURRENCY – The timeliness of informationRELEVANCE – The importance of the informationAUTHORITY – The source of the informationACCURACY – The reliability, truthfulness, correctness of the informationPURPOSE – The reason why this information exists
Attention: any analysis that does not contain sources will be rejected.
Sources
1. Blakeslee, Sarah (2004). "The CRAAP Test". LOEX Quarterly. 31 (3).
2. Fielding, Jennifer A. (December 2019). "Rethinking CRAAP: Getting students thinking like fact-checkers in evaluating web sources". C&RL News. 80 (11): 620–622.
