Criteria and vocabulary for evaluating source credibility, bias, and relevance in AP Seminar research. Front: the term or criterion. Back: a plain-language definition.
36 cards · basic cards · AI-written, checked twice. Edit anything.
- Authority
- The credibility and expertise of a source's author or organization based on their qualifications, background, and track record.
- Bias
- A systematic leaning toward a particular viewpoint or perspective that may cause a source to omit, exaggerate, or distort information.
- Relevance
- The degree to which a source's content directly addresses or relates to your research question or argument.
- Currency
- How recent a source is and whether that recency matters for your topic, since information ages differently across disciplines.
- Accuracy
- The factual correctness of a source's claims, verifiable through checking citations, facts, and cross-referencing with other reliable sources.
- Primary source
- An original document, record, or artifact created at the time of the events being studied, such as a diary, letter, photograph, or original research data.
- Secondary source
- A work that analyzes, interprets, or comments on primary sources, written after the events described, such as a history book or journal article.
- Tertiary source
- A source that compiles and summarizes information from primary and secondary sources, such as an encyclopedia or textbook overview.
- Peer review
- The process where experts in a field evaluate a work for accuracy and quality before it is published, providing a quality assurance layer.
- Scholarly source
- A work produced by academics or experts, usually peer-reviewed and published in academic journals or university presses, with cited evidence.
- Popular source
- A work written for a general audience without peer review, such as news articles, magazines, and websites, often prioritizing accessibility over technical depth.
- Conflict of interest
- A situation where a source's author or sponsor has a financial, political, or personal stake in the outcomes or conclusions of their work.
- Sponsorship
- Funding or support for a source's creation by an organization or entity, which may influence the conclusions or which aspects of a topic receive emphasis.
- Ad hominem fallacy
- An argument that attacks the person making a claim rather than addressing the actual evidence or logic of the claim itself.
- Cherry picking
- Selecting only evidence that supports your conclusion while ignoring contradictory evidence, creating a misleading incomplete picture.