Assessment of the Quality and Credibility of Literature in Academic Research
Abstract
Literature has a fundamental role in the academic world, especially at the master's and doctoral levels, as the foundation for scientific development. However, in the digital era marked by a flood of information, the assessment of the quality and credibility of literature has become increasingly complex. Researchers and students are not only required to find relevant sources, but also trustworthy and high-quality sources. This challenge is exacerbated by the rise of predatory journals, scientific disinformation, publication pressure, and an over-reliance on metrics such as the Impact Factor, which has the potential to obscure the scientific quality of a work. This article aims to explain and dissect the criteria and techniques in assessing the quality and credibility of scientific literature. In addition, this study also aims to compare the characteristics of academic sources with popular literature to help researchers choose the right and scientifically responsible sources. This study uses a literature study approach with descriptive analysis of various academic literature sources that discuss the assessment of the quality of scientific publications. Data were obtained from books, reputable journal articles, and relevant academic guidelines, then analyzed to identify criteria and techniques for evaluating the literature. The results of the discussion show that the assessment of the quality of literature needs to be carried out comprehensively by considering the credibility of the author, the reputation of the publisher, the peer review process, the relevance of the content, and the methodological context. The practical implication of this research is the availability of conceptual and technical guidance for researchers and students in facing literary challenges in the digital era, so as to maintain research integrity and improve the quality of scientific work.
Keywords
Full Text:
PDFReferences
Association of College and Research Libraries. (2021). Framework for information literacy for higher education.
Beall, J. (2016). Predatory journals: Ban predators from the scientific record. Nature, 534(7607), 326. https://doi.org/10.1038/534326a
Bornmann, L., & Daniel, H. D. (2022). The use of citation indicators in research evaluation: A review. Journal of Informetrics, 16(2), 101–115.
Bramer, W. M., Rethlefsen, M. L., Kleijnen, J., & Franco, O. H. (2017). Optimal database combinations for literature searches in systematic reviews: A prospective exploratory study. Systematic Reviews, 6(1), 245. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-017-0644-y
Brophy, J. (2008). Developing students’ critical thinking through sources evaluation. Higher Education Review, 40(2), 23–45.
Clarivate. (2023). Journal citation reports.
Committee on Publication Ethics. (2020). Core practices.
Cook, D. A., & Beckman, T. J. (2006). Current concepts in validity and reliability for psychometric instruments: Theory and application. The American Journal of Medicine, 119(2), 166.e7–166.e16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amjmed.2005.10.036
Creswell, J. W. (2014). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (4th ed.). SAGE Publications.
Garfield, E. (2006). The history and meaning of the journal impact factor. JAMA, 295(1), 90–93. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.295.1.90
Grassian, E. S., & Kaplowitz, J. R. (2009). Information literacy instruction: Theory and practice. Neal-Schuman.
Grudniewicz, A., Moher, D., Cobey, K. D., et al. (2020). Predatory journals: No definition, no defense. Nature, 576(7786), 210–212.
Gusenbauer, M., & Haddaway, N. R. (2020). Which academic search systems are suitable for systematic reviews or meta-analyses? Research Synthesis Methods, 11(2), 181–217. https://doi.org/10.1002/jrsm.1378
Harzing, A. W., & Alakangas, S. (2017). Microsoft Academic: Is the phoenix getting wings? Scientometrics, 110(1), 371–383.
Hicks, D., Wouters, P., Waltman, L., de Rijcke, S., & Rafols, I. (2015). Bibliometrics: The Leiden Manifesto for research metrics. Nature, 520(7548), 429–431.
Ioannidis, J. P. A. (2005). Why most published research findings are false. PLoS Medicine, 2(8), e124. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124
Kitchenham, B., & Charters, S. (2007). Guidelines for performing systematic literature reviews in software engineering (EBSE Technical Report No. EBSE-2007-01). Keele University & Durham University.
Mingers, J., & Yang, L. (2016). Evaluating journal quality: A review of journal ranking methods and their limitations. European Journal of Operational Research, 257(1), 323–337.
Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., Altman, D. G., & The PRISMA Group. (2009). Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA statement. PLoS Medicine, 6(7), e1000097. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1000097
Open Access Scholarly Publishers Association. (2022). Principles of transparency and best practice in scholarly publishing.
San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment. (2013). Putting science into the assessment of research. https://sfdora.org
Seglen, P. O. (1997). Why the impact factor of journals should not be used for evaluating research. BMJ, 314(7079), 498–502.
Shen, C., & Björk, B. C. (2015). ‘Predatory’ open access: A longitudinal study of article volumes and market characteristics. BMC Medicine, 13(1), 230.
Spiegelhalter, D. (2017). The art of statistics: Learning from data. Penguin Books.
Sugiyono. (2021). Metode penelitian kuantitatif, kualitatif, dan R&D (2nd ed.). Alfabeta.
Thelwall, M. (2020). The use of bibliometrics to evaluate research quality. Annual Review of Information Science and Technology, 54, 1–27.
Wager, E., & Kleinert, S. (2011). Responsible research publication: International standards for authors. World Conference on Research Integrity.
Ware, M. (2008). Peer review: Benefits, perceptions and alternatives. Publishing Research Consortium.
Waltman, L., van Eck, N. J., & Wouters, P. (2021). The future of journal impact metrics: From impact factors to responsible use. Quantitative Science Studies, 2(2), 882–901.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.31004/jele.v10i6.1699
Refbacks
- There are currently no refbacks.
Copyright (c) 2025 Titip Elyas, Widya Sagita, Wahidah Fitriani

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.


