Evaluating Source Quality - Paper Example

Credible and authoritative sources are essential aspects of research. For that matter, a careful evaluation of the required articles should be performed to warrant scientific application. Gallo, Sullivan, and Glisson (2016) observe that an article represents scientific concepts that set the ground for current and subsequent research, which, if imprecise, its use leads to the multiplication of misinformation. Therefore, an assessment of the source quality is necessary for validation of the scientific information. This paper will use the PREPARE criteria for critiquing two sources and determine their future use in research. They include articles by Jackson et al. (2011) and Brattberg (2012).

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Order now

Application of the PREPARE Criteria

Peer Review

This process is intended to confer scientific validity and quality to the content and citations in articles. Although there are different methods of identifying peer-reviewed articles, the scope of identification is almost universal (Gallo et al., 2016). The two articles, by Jackson, Faith and Willis (2011), and Brattberg (2012), are both found in the Journal of Contingencies and Management, which is peer reviewed. The Ulrichs International Periodical Directory confirms the review status of the above journal. Since the two articles above are published in referred journal, this reality confirms their peer-review status.

Recent

Currency in article content occurs for five years, after which it may be deemed less credible because scientific information is dynamic, and past research may be ambiguously interpreted (Martensson et al., 2015). Reflecting on this construct, the publication by Jackson et al. (2011) is older than five years, while that from Brattberg (2012) is within the five-year stipulation. Considering this fact, scientific content from the latter is likely to be more credible than the former.

Evidence

Jackson et al. (2011) claim that reliability analysis can be used to evaluate emergency response systems. They use engineering and system analysis to support their claim, which, is relevant, considering that emergency responses are performance-related, application depends on reliability. However, the evidence may not be sufficient because of failure modes. Nonetheless, the choice of engineering and system analysis is representative, bearing in mind that emergency responses are structural. As a result, the article presents modest evidence on the claim. Notwithstanding the constructs mentioned above, Brattberg (2012) asserts that coordinating for contingencies is the best approach to US homeland security issues. He uses the homeland security post-9/11 reforms to support his claim, which, is relevant, given the emergency issues surrounding security threats. Besides, his choice of approach is sufficient (coordination is both methodical and empirical), and the selection of the organizations is representative (has different stakeholders). However, compared to Jackson et al. (2010)'s modest evidence, Brattberg (2012)s satisfaction of all the components of the evidence framework signifies its high-level support for the claim.

Purpose

Martensson et al. (2015) highlight that the purpose of any scientific publication is to show the burden of the precise issue so as to guide the necessary action. This argument is reflected in both Jackson et al. (2011)s, and Brattberg (2012)s articles. Jackson and colleagues (2011) intended to influence the utilization of reliability scores to guide the adoption of emergency interventions, while Brattberg (2012)s aim is to influence the use of coordinated contingency strategies in dealing with emergency issues. Since both articles indicate the burden of issues to society, their purposes are evident.

Authority

According to Martensson et al. (2015), scientific authority is accorded by the evidence of peer review and the use of extensive and credible citations from scholarly sources. Apparently, the two articles are published in a referred journal, thereby according them the scientific authority. In as much the appraisal is clear, the two sources also use scholarly references as supporting texts to their claims, thus making them authoritative (Martensson et al., 2015).

Relevance

This part connects the evidence to the claims, and if representative enough, its content becomes relevant (Martensson et al., 2015). A critical appraisal of both articles shows that the evidence is representative to the assertions. Therefore, both articles are relevant.

Ethics

The publications by Jackson et al. (2011) and Brattberg (2012) acknowledge the stakeholders that have been useful in the realization of the publications. Recognizing those involved in the final publication identifies their contributions, thereby facilitating involvement in future projects. Although recognition is an important attribute in research, the ability to present the scientific information objectively and logically confers value and merit to the publication (Martensson et al., 2015). From these reviews, both of the articles are ethically credible.

Conclusion

Scientific articles are vital sources of information that warrant critical analyses for application in subsequent research. Although the evaluation techniques are varied, they target the stellar quality of the article's research information. The PREPARE tool is essential in the identification of sources to be used in future studies. Through its application, Brattberg (2012)s publication satisfies the appraisal components and becomes the best option for consideration. However, despite modestly meeting the evaluation criteria, Jackson et al. (2011) article can still be credibly used for citation. As a result, a critical assessment of scholarly sources is necessary for validating scientific information.

References

Brattberg, E. (2012). Coordinating for contingencies: Taking stock of post-9/11 homeland

security reforms. Journal of Contingencies and Crisis Management, 20(2), 77-89. DOI: 10.1111/j.1468-5973.2012. 00662.x

Gallo, S.A., Sullivan, J.H., Glisson, S.R. (2016). The influence of peer reviewer expertise on the

evaluation of research funding applications. PLoS ONE, 11(10): e0165147. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0165147

Jackson, B.A., Faith, K.S., & Willis, H.H. (2011). Are we prepared? Using reliability analysis to

evaluate emergency response systems. Journal of Contingencies and Crisis Management, 19(3), 147-157. DOI: 10.1111/j.1468-5973.2011. 00641.x

Martensson, P., Fors, U., Wallin, S-B., Zander, U., & Nilsson, G.H. (2015). Evaluating research:

A multidisciplinary approach to assessing research practice and quality. Research Policy, 45(3), 593-603. DOI: 10.1016/j.respol.2015.11.009