Microsoft Word Bachelor-Thesis-bl-pi-klar docx

 
 

---

57
Appendices 
 
1. Source Criticism
 
Academic publishes are evaluated through a peer review process prior to the publishing where 
the articles become quality controlled against other journals that have been evaluated within 
their field (Coniam, 2012). A peer review’s purpose is to improve the work before it is 
published. This will help ensure that the published articles are scientifically while non-
scientific articles are to be rejected. A journal that is peer-reviewed is usually sent to experts 
outside the staff conducting the research. The purpose of sending the journals outside of the 
personnel of research is to get a professional opinion outside of the personnel (van Rooyen, 
1998). Although the peer review process is an established component of published material, 
Coniam (2012) mentions that there are some issues that might arise. Issues include degrees of 
feedback researchers give in the case of rejection, explicit guidelines for the reviewers and 
authors. More issues that may arise are the reliability and validity of the published material in 
the terms of the degree in discussion between the authors and reviewers for the topic of the 
work and the quality and length of the published journal, which may lessen the opportunity to 
evaluate the material and hence the chance for improving it (Coniam, 2012).
Coniam (2012) mentions five criteria for evaluating the material: originality, ethical issues, 
language, structure, and previous research. Originality discusses if the published material 
contributes with any kind of knowledge and if it is interesting and adequate. Ethical issues 
refer to if the journal contains any plagiarism or fraud. Language indicates if the work 
contains the proper language and grammar as well as the understanding of the material. 
Structure is an overview of the article as a whole, if the key components such as abstract, 
introduction, methodology, and conclusion are all presented in the work. The last criteria, 
previous research, concerns whether an article is based on previous research and thus also 
referred to correctly and appropriately (Coniam, 2012). 
Apart from the criteria highlighted by Coniam (2012), Rhoades (2011) discusses the reader’s 
accurate judgment and evaluation as a portion of validity of the journals. When evaluating the 
collected material, the reader should remain critical in order to evaluate the data 
professionally. Out of the evaluator’s reflective way of thinking and expertise, the researchers 
can make proper discernments of what is considered to be suitable articles and relevant 
information for the study conducted (Rhoades, 2011).

---

58