Have a language expert improve your writing

Run a free plagiarism check in 10 minutes, generate accurate citations for free.

  • Knowledge Base
  • Working with sources
  • What Are Credible Sources & How to Spot Them | Examples

What Are Credible Sources & How to Spot Them | Examples

Published on August 26, 2021 by Tegan George . Revised on May 31, 2023.

A credible source is free from bias and backed up with evidence. It is written by a trustworthy author or organization.

There are a lot of sources out there, and it can be hard to tell what’s credible and what isn’t at first glance.

Evaluating source credibility is an important information literacy skill. It ensures that you collect accurate information to back up the arguments you make and the conclusions you draw.

Table of contents

Types of sources, how to identify a credible source, the craap test, where to find credible sources, evaluating web sources, other interesting articles, frequently asked questions.

There are many different types of sources , which can be divided into three categories: primary sources , secondary sources , and tertiary sources .

Primary sources are often considered the most credible in terms of providing evidence for your argument, as they give you direct evidence of what you are researching. However, it’s up to you to ensure the information they provide is reliable and accurate.

You will likely use a combination of the three types over the course of your research process .

Prevent plagiarism. Run a free check.

There are a few criteria to look at right away when assessing a source. Together, these criteria form what is known as the CRAAP test .

  • The information should be up-to-date and current.
  • The source should be relevant to your research.
  • The author and publication should be a trusted authority on the subject you are researching.
  • The sources the author cited should be easy to find, clear, and unbiased.
  • For web sources, the URL and layout should signify that it is trustworthy.

The CRAAP test is a catchy acronym that will help you evaluate the credibility of a source you are thinking about using. California State University developed it in 2004 to help students remember best practices for evaluating content.

  • C urrency: Is the source up-to-date?
  • R elevance: Is the source relevant to your research?
  • A uthority: Where is the source published? Who is the author? Are they considered reputable and trustworthy in their field?
  • A ccuracy: Is the source supported by evidence? Are the claims cited correctly?
  • P urpose: What was the motive behind publishing this source?

The criteria for evaluating each point depend on your research topic .

For example, if you are researching cutting-edge scientific technology, a source from 10 years ago will not be sufficiently current . However, if you are researching the Peloponnesian War, a source from 200 years ago would be reasonable to refer to.

Be careful when ascertaining purpose . It can be very unclear (often by design!) what a source’s motive is. For example, a journal article discussing the efficacy of a particular medication may seem credible, but if the publisher is the manufacturer of the medication, you can’t be sure that it is free from bias. As a rule of thumb, if a source is even passively trying to convince you to purchase something, it may not be credible.

Newspapers can be a great way to glean first-hand information about a historical event or situate your research topic within a broader context. However, the veracity and reliability of online news sources can vary enormously—be sure to pay careful attention to authority here.

When evaluating academic journals or books published by university presses, it’s always a good rule of thumb to ensure they are peer-reviewed and published in a reputable journal.

What is peer review?

The peer review process evaluates submissions to academic journals. A panel of reviewers in the same subject area decide whether a submission should be accepted for publication based on a set of criteria.

For this reason, academic journals are often considered among the most credible sources you can use in a research project– provided that the journal itself is trustworthy and well-regarded.

What sources you use depend on the kind of research you are conducting.

For preliminary research and getting to know a new topic, you could use a combination of primary, secondary, and tertiary sources.

  • Encyclopedias
  • Websites with .edu or .org domains
  • News sources with first-hand reporting
  • Research-oriented magazines like ScienceMag or Nature Weekly .

As you dig deeper into your scholarly research, books and academic journals are usually your best bet.

Academic journals are often a great place to find trustworthy and credible content, and are considered one of the most reliable sources you can use in academic writing.

  • Is the journal indexed in academic databases?
  • Has the journal had to retract many articles?
  • Are the journal’s policies on copyright and peer review easily available?
  • Are there solid “About” and “ Scope ” pages detailing what sorts of articles they publish?
  • Has the author of the article published other articles? A quick Google Scholar search will show you.
  • Has the author been cited by other scholars? Google Scholar also has a function called “Cited By” that can show you where the author has been cited. A high number of “Cited By” results can often be a measurement of credibility.

Google Scholar is a search engine for academic sources. This is a great place to kick off your research. You can also consider using an academic database like LexisNexis or government open data to get started.

Open Educational Resources , or OERs, are materials that have been licensed for “free use” in educational settings. Legitimate OERs can be a great resource. Be sure they have a Creative Commons license allowing them to be duplicated and shared, and meet the CRAAP test criteria, especially in the authority section. The OER Commons is a public digital library that is curated by librarians, and a solid place to start.

The only proofreading tool specialized in correcting academic writing - try for free!

The academic proofreading tool has been trained on 1000s of academic texts and by native English editors. Making it the most accurate and reliable proofreading tool for students.

credibility definition research paper

Try for free

It can be especially challenging to verify the credibility of online sources. They often do not have single authors or publication dates, and their motivation can be more difficult to ascertain.

Websites are not subject to the peer-review and editing process that academic journals or books go through, and can be published by anyone at any time.

When evaluating the credibility of a website, look first at the URL. The domain extension can help you understand what type of website you’re dealing with.

  • Educational resources end in .edu, and are generally considered the most credible in academic settings.
  • Advocacy or non-profit organizations end in .org.
  • Government-affiliated websites end in .gov.
  • Websites with some sort of commercial aspect end in .com (or .co.uk, or another country-specific domain).

In general, check for vague terms, buzzwords, or writing that is too emotive or subjective . Beware of grandiose claims, and critically analyze anything not cited or backed up by evidence.

  • How does the website look and feel? Does it look professional to you?
  • Is there an “About Us” page, or a way to contact the author or organization if you need clarification on a claim they have made?
  • Are there links to other sources on the page, and are they trustworthy?
  • Can the information you found be verified elsewhere, even via a simple Google search?
  • When was the website last updated? If it hasn’t been updated recently, it may not pass the CRAAP test.
  • Does the website have a lot of advertisements or sponsored content? This could be a sign of bias.
  • Is a source of funding disclosed? This could also give you insight into the author and publisher’s motivations.

Social media posts, blogs, and personal websites can be good resources for a situational analysis or grounding of your preliminary ideas, but exercise caution here. These highly personal and subjective sources are seldom reliable enough to stand on their own in your final research product.

Similarly, Wikipedia is not considered a reliable source due to the fact that it can be edited by anyone at any time. However, it can be a good starting point for general information and finding other sources.

Checklist: Is my source credible?

My source is relevant to my research topic.

My source is recent enough to contain up-to-date information on my topic.

There are no glaring grammatical or orthographic errors.

The author is an expert in their field.

The information provided is accurate to the best of my knowledge. I have checked that it is supported by evidence and/or verifiable elsewhere.

My source cites or links to other sources that appear relevant and trustworthy.

There is a way to contact the author or publisher of my source.

The purpose of my source is to educate or inform, not to sell a product or push a particular opinion.

My source is unbiased, and offers multiple perspectives fairly.

My source avoids vague or grandiose claims, and writing that is too emotive or subjective.

[For academic journals]: My source is peer-reviewed and published in a reputable and established journal.

[For web sources]: The layout of my source is professional and recently updated. Backlinks to other sources are up-to-date and not broken.

[For web sources]: My source’s URL suggests the domain is trustworthy, e.g. a .edu address.

Your sources are likely to be credible!

If you want to know more about ChatGPT, AI tools , citation , and plagiarism , make sure to check out some of our other articles with explanations and examples.

  • ChatGPT vs human editor
  • ChatGPT citations
  • Is ChatGPT trustworthy?
  • Using ChatGPT for your studies
  • What is ChatGPT?
  • Chicago style
  • Paraphrasing

 Plagiarism

  • Types of plagiarism
  • Self-plagiarism
  • Avoiding plagiarism
  • Academic integrity
  • Consequences of plagiarism
  • Common knowledge

A credible source should pass the CRAAP test  and follow these guidelines:

  • The information should be up to date and current.
  • For a web source, the URL and layout should signify that it is trustworthy.

Peer review is a process of evaluating submissions to an academic journal. Utilizing rigorous criteria, a panel of reviewers in the same subject area decide whether to accept each submission for publication. For this reason, academic journals are often considered among the most credible sources you can use in a research project– provided that the journal itself is trustworthy and well-regarded.

The CRAAP test is an acronym to help you evaluate the credibility of a source you are considering using. It is an important component of information literacy .

The CRAAP test has five main components:

  • Currency: Is the source up to date?
  • Relevance: Is the source relevant to your research?
  • Authority: Where is the source published? Who is the author? Are they considered reputable and trustworthy in their field?
  • Accuracy: Is the source supported by evidence? Are the claims cited correctly?
  • Purpose: What was the motive behind publishing this source?

Academic dishonesty can be intentional or unintentional, ranging from something as simple as claiming to have read something you didn’t to copying your neighbor’s answers on an exam.

You can commit academic dishonesty with the best of intentions, such as helping a friend cheat on a paper. Severe academic dishonesty can include buying a pre-written essay or the answers to a multiple-choice test, or falsifying a medical emergency to avoid taking a final exam.

To determine if a source is primary or secondary, ask yourself:

  • Was the source created by someone directly involved in the events you’re studying (primary), or by another researcher (secondary)?
  • Does the source provide original information (primary), or does it summarize information from other sources (secondary)?
  • Are you directly analyzing the source itself (primary), or only using it for background information (secondary)?

Some types of source are nearly always primary: works of art and literature, raw statistical data, official documents and records, and personal communications (e.g. letters, interviews ). If you use one of these in your research, it is probably a primary source.

Primary sources are often considered the most credible in terms of providing evidence for your argument, as they give you direct evidence of what you are researching. However, it’s up to you to ensure the information they provide is reliable and accurate.

Always make sure to properly cite your sources to avoid plagiarism .

Cite this Scribbr article

If you want to cite this source, you can copy and paste the citation or click the “Cite this Scribbr article” button to automatically add the citation to our free Citation Generator.

George, T. (2023, May 31). What Are Credible Sources & How to Spot Them | Examples. Scribbr. Retrieved February 19, 2024, from https://www.scribbr.com/working-with-sources/credible-sources/

Is this article helpful?

Tegan George

Tegan George

Other students also liked, applying the craap test & evaluating sources, how to cite a wikipedia article | apa, mla & chicago, primary vs. secondary sources | difference & examples.

Banner

Research Basics: an open academic research skills course

  • Lesson 1: Using Library Tools
  • Lesson 2: Smart searching
  • Lesson 3: Managing information overload
  • Assessment - Module 1
  • Lesson 1: The ABCs of scholarly sources
  • Lesson 2: Additional ways of identifying scholarly sources
  • Lesson 3: Verifying online sources
  • Assessment - Module 2
  • Lesson 1: Creating citations
  • Lesson 2: Citing and paraphrasing
  • Lesson 3: Works cited, bibliographies, and notes
  • Assessment - Module 3
  • - For Librarians and Teachers -
  • Acknowledgements
  • Other free resources from JSTOR

Module 2: Establishing credibility

Research Rookie badge

To get started, choose “Lesson 1” from the navigation bar on your left.  Each lesson has two components—Watch and Practice. After watching the videos, practice what you’ve learned before proceeding to the next lesson. After you complete all three lessons in this module, choose “Assessment - Module 2” from the navigation bar on the left. Have fun!

  • << Previous: Assessment - Module 1
  • Next: Lesson 1: The ABCs of scholarly sources >>
  • Last Updated: Sep 15, 2023 7:40 AM
  • URL: https://guides.jstor.org/researchbasics

JSTOR is part of ITHAKA , a not-for-profit organization helping the academic community use digital technologies to preserve the scholarly record and to advance research and teaching in sustainable ways.

©2000-2024 ITHAKA. All Rights Reserved. JSTOR®, the JSTOR logo, JPASS®, Artstor® and ITHAKA® are registered trademarks of ITHAKA.

JSTOR.org Terms and Conditions   Privacy Policy Cookie Policy Cookie settings Accessibility

U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

  • Publications
  • Account settings
  • Advanced Search
  • Journal List
  • J Family Med Prim Care
  • v.4(3); Jul-Sep 2015

Validity, reliability, and generalizability in qualitative research

Lawrence leung.

1 Department of Family Medicine, Queen's University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada

2 Centre of Studies in Primary Care, Queen's University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada

In general practice, qualitative research contributes as significantly as quantitative research, in particular regarding psycho-social aspects of patient-care, health services provision, policy setting, and health administrations. In contrast to quantitative research, qualitative research as a whole has been constantly critiqued, if not disparaged, by the lack of consensus for assessing its quality and robustness. This article illustrates with five published studies how qualitative research can impact and reshape the discipline of primary care, spiraling out from clinic-based health screening to community-based disease monitoring, evaluation of out-of-hours triage services to provincial psychiatric care pathways model and finally, national legislation of core measures for children's healthcare insurance. Fundamental concepts of validity, reliability, and generalizability as applicable to qualitative research are then addressed with an update on the current views and controversies.

Nature of Qualitative Research versus Quantitative Research

The essence of qualitative research is to make sense of and recognize patterns among words in order to build up a meaningful picture without compromising its richness and dimensionality. Like quantitative research, the qualitative research aims to seek answers for questions of “how, where, when who and why” with a perspective to build a theory or refute an existing theory. Unlike quantitative research which deals primarily with numerical data and their statistical interpretations under a reductionist, logical and strictly objective paradigm, qualitative research handles nonnumerical information and their phenomenological interpretation, which inextricably tie in with human senses and subjectivity. While human emotions and perspectives from both subjects and researchers are considered undesirable biases confounding results in quantitative research, the same elements are considered essential and inevitable, if not treasurable, in qualitative research as they invariable add extra dimensions and colors to enrich the corpus of findings. However, the issue of subjectivity and contextual ramifications has fueled incessant controversies regarding yardsticks for quality and trustworthiness of qualitative research results for healthcare.

Impact of Qualitative Research upon Primary Care

In many ways, qualitative research contributes significantly, if not more so than quantitative research, to the field of primary care at various levels. Five qualitative studies are chosen to illustrate how various methodologies of qualitative research helped in advancing primary healthcare, from novel monitoring of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) via mobile-health technology,[ 1 ] informed decision for colorectal cancer screening,[ 2 ] triaging out-of-hours GP services,[ 3 ] evaluating care pathways for community psychiatry[ 4 ] and finally prioritization of healthcare initiatives for legislation purposes at national levels.[ 5 ] With the recent advances of information technology and mobile connecting device, self-monitoring and management of chronic diseases via tele-health technology may seem beneficial to both the patient and healthcare provider. Recruiting COPD patients who were given tele-health devices that monitored lung functions, Williams et al. [ 1 ] conducted phone interviews and analyzed their transcripts via a grounded theory approach, identified themes which enabled them to conclude that such mobile-health setup and application helped to engage patients with better adherence to treatment and overall improvement in mood. Such positive findings were in contrast to previous studies, which opined that elderly patients were often challenged by operating computer tablets,[ 6 ] or, conversing with the tele-health software.[ 7 ] To explore the content of recommendations for colorectal cancer screening given out by family physicians, Wackerbarth, et al. [ 2 ] conducted semi-structure interviews with subsequent content analysis and found that most physicians delivered information to enrich patient knowledge with little regard to patients’ true understanding, ideas, and preferences in the matter. These findings suggested room for improvement for family physicians to better engage their patients in recommending preventative care. Faced with various models of out-of-hours triage services for GP consultations, Egbunike et al. [ 3 ] conducted thematic analysis on semi-structured telephone interviews with patients and doctors in various urban, rural and mixed settings. They found that the efficiency of triage services remained a prime concern from both users and providers, among issues of access to doctors and unfulfilled/mismatched expectations from users, which could arouse dissatisfaction and legal implications. In UK, a care pathways model for community psychiatry had been introduced but its benefits were unclear. Khandaker et al. [ 4 ] hence conducted a qualitative study using semi-structure interviews with medical staff and other stakeholders; adopting a grounded-theory approach, major themes emerged which included improved equality of access, more focused logistics, increased work throughput and better accountability for community psychiatry provided under the care pathway model. Finally, at the US national level, Mangione-Smith et al. [ 5 ] employed a modified Delphi method to gather consensus from a panel of nominators which were recognized experts and stakeholders in their disciplines, and identified a core set of quality measures for children's healthcare under the Medicaid and Children's Health Insurance Program. These core measures were made transparent for public opinion and later passed on for full legislation, hence illustrating the impact of qualitative research upon social welfare and policy improvement.

Overall Criteria for Quality in Qualitative Research

Given the diverse genera and forms of qualitative research, there is no consensus for assessing any piece of qualitative research work. Various approaches have been suggested, the two leading schools of thoughts being the school of Dixon-Woods et al. [ 8 ] which emphasizes on methodology, and that of Lincoln et al. [ 9 ] which stresses the rigor of interpretation of results. By identifying commonalities of qualitative research, Dixon-Woods produced a checklist of questions for assessing clarity and appropriateness of the research question; the description and appropriateness for sampling, data collection and data analysis; levels of support and evidence for claims; coherence between data, interpretation and conclusions, and finally level of contribution of the paper. These criteria foster the 10 questions for the Critical Appraisal Skills Program checklist for qualitative studies.[ 10 ] However, these methodology-weighted criteria may not do justice to qualitative studies that differ in epistemological and philosophical paradigms,[ 11 , 12 ] one classic example will be positivistic versus interpretivistic.[ 13 ] Equally, without a robust methodological layout, rigorous interpretation of results advocated by Lincoln et al. [ 9 ] will not be good either. Meyrick[ 14 ] argued from a different angle and proposed fulfillment of the dual core criteria of “transparency” and “systematicity” for good quality qualitative research. In brief, every step of the research logistics (from theory formation, design of study, sampling, data acquisition and analysis to results and conclusions) has to be validated if it is transparent or systematic enough. In this manner, both the research process and results can be assured of high rigor and robustness.[ 14 ] Finally, Kitto et al. [ 15 ] epitomized six criteria for assessing overall quality of qualitative research: (i) Clarification and justification, (ii) procedural rigor, (iii) sample representativeness, (iv) interpretative rigor, (v) reflexive and evaluative rigor and (vi) transferability/generalizability, which also double as evaluative landmarks for manuscript review to the Medical Journal of Australia. Same for quantitative research, quality for qualitative research can be assessed in terms of validity, reliability, and generalizability.

Validity in qualitative research means “appropriateness” of the tools, processes, and data. Whether the research question is valid for the desired outcome, the choice of methodology is appropriate for answering the research question, the design is valid for the methodology, the sampling and data analysis is appropriate, and finally the results and conclusions are valid for the sample and context. In assessing validity of qualitative research, the challenge can start from the ontology and epistemology of the issue being studied, e.g. the concept of “individual” is seen differently between humanistic and positive psychologists due to differing philosophical perspectives:[ 16 ] Where humanistic psychologists believe “individual” is a product of existential awareness and social interaction, positive psychologists think the “individual” exists side-by-side with formation of any human being. Set off in different pathways, qualitative research regarding the individual's wellbeing will be concluded with varying validity. Choice of methodology must enable detection of findings/phenomena in the appropriate context for it to be valid, with due regard to culturally and contextually variable. For sampling, procedures and methods must be appropriate for the research paradigm and be distinctive between systematic,[ 17 ] purposeful[ 18 ] or theoretical (adaptive) sampling[ 19 , 20 ] where the systematic sampling has no a priori theory, purposeful sampling often has a certain aim or framework and theoretical sampling is molded by the ongoing process of data collection and theory in evolution. For data extraction and analysis, several methods were adopted to enhance validity, including 1 st tier triangulation (of researchers) and 2 nd tier triangulation (of resources and theories),[ 17 , 21 ] well-documented audit trail of materials and processes,[ 22 , 23 , 24 ] multidimensional analysis as concept- or case-orientated[ 25 , 26 ] and respondent verification.[ 21 , 27 ]

Reliability

In quantitative research, reliability refers to exact replicability of the processes and the results. In qualitative research with diverse paradigms, such definition of reliability is challenging and epistemologically counter-intuitive. Hence, the essence of reliability for qualitative research lies with consistency.[ 24 , 28 ] A margin of variability for results is tolerated in qualitative research provided the methodology and epistemological logistics consistently yield data that are ontologically similar but may differ in richness and ambience within similar dimensions. Silverman[ 29 ] proposed five approaches in enhancing the reliability of process and results: Refutational analysis, constant data comparison, comprehensive data use, inclusive of the deviant case and use of tables. As data were extracted from the original sources, researchers must verify their accuracy in terms of form and context with constant comparison,[ 27 ] either alone or with peers (a form of triangulation).[ 30 ] The scope and analysis of data included should be as comprehensive and inclusive with reference to quantitative aspects if possible.[ 30 ] Adopting the Popperian dictum of falsifiability as essence of truth and science, attempted to refute the qualitative data and analytes should be performed to assess reliability.[ 31 ]

Generalizability

Most qualitative research studies, if not all, are meant to study a specific issue or phenomenon in a certain population or ethnic group, of a focused locality in a particular context, hence generalizability of qualitative research findings is usually not an expected attribute. However, with rising trend of knowledge synthesis from qualitative research via meta-synthesis, meta-narrative or meta-ethnography, evaluation of generalizability becomes pertinent. A pragmatic approach to assessing generalizability for qualitative studies is to adopt same criteria for validity: That is, use of systematic sampling, triangulation and constant comparison, proper audit and documentation, and multi-dimensional theory.[ 17 ] However, some researchers espouse the approach of analytical generalization[ 32 ] where one judges the extent to which the findings in one study can be generalized to another under similar theoretical, and the proximal similarity model, where generalizability of one study to another is judged by similarities between the time, place, people and other social contexts.[ 33 ] Thus said, Zimmer[ 34 ] questioned the suitability of meta-synthesis in view of the basic tenets of grounded theory,[ 35 ] phenomenology[ 36 ] and ethnography.[ 37 ] He concluded that any valid meta-synthesis must retain the other two goals of theory development and higher-level abstraction while in search of generalizability, and must be executed as a third level interpretation using Gadamer's concepts of the hermeneutic circle,[ 38 , 39 ] dialogic process[ 38 ] and fusion of horizons.[ 39 ] Finally, Toye et al. [ 40 ] reported the practicality of using “conceptual clarity” and “interpretative rigor” as intuitive criteria for assessing quality in meta-ethnography, which somehow echoed Rolfe's controversial aesthetic theory of research reports.[ 41 ]

Food for Thought

Despite various measures to enhance or ensure quality of qualitative studies, some researchers opined from a purist ontological and epistemological angle that qualitative research is not a unified, but ipso facto diverse field,[ 8 ] hence any attempt to synthesize or appraise different studies under one system is impossible and conceptually wrong. Barbour argued from a philosophical angle that these special measures or “technical fixes” (like purposive sampling, multiple-coding, triangulation, and respondent validation) can never confer the rigor as conceived.[ 11 ] In extremis, Rolfe et al. opined from the field of nursing research, that any set of formal criteria used to judge the quality of qualitative research are futile and without validity, and suggested that any qualitative report should be judged by the form it is written (aesthetic) and not by the contents (epistemic).[ 41 ] Rolfe's novel view is rebutted by Porter,[ 42 ] who argued via logical premises that two of Rolfe's fundamental statements were flawed: (i) “The content of research report is determined by their forms” may not be a fact, and (ii) that research appraisal being “subject to individual judgment based on insight and experience” will mean those without sufficient experience of performing research will be unable to judge adequately – hence an elitist's principle. From a realism standpoint, Porter then proposes multiple and open approaches for validity in qualitative research that incorporate parallel perspectives[ 43 , 44 ] and diversification of meanings.[ 44 ] Any work of qualitative research, when read by the readers, is always a two-way interactive process, such that validity and quality has to be judged by the receiving end too and not by the researcher end alone.

In summary, the three gold criteria of validity, reliability and generalizability apply in principle to assess quality for both quantitative and qualitative research, what differs will be the nature and type of processes that ontologically and epistemologically distinguish between the two.

Source of Support: Nil.

Conflict of Interest: None declared.

When you choose to publish with PLOS, your research makes an impact. Make your work accessible to all, without restrictions, and accelerate scientific discovery with options like preprints and published peer review that make your work more Open.

  • PLOS Biology
  • PLOS Climate
  • PLOS Complex Systems
  • PLOS Computational Biology
  • PLOS Digital Health
  • PLOS Genetics
  • PLOS Global Public Health
  • PLOS Medicine
  • PLOS Mental Health
  • PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases
  • PLOS Pathogens
  • PLOS Sustainability and Transformation
  • PLOS Collections
  • About This Blog
  • Official PLOS Blog
  • EveryONE Blog
  • Speaking of Medicine
  • PLOS Biologue
  • Absolutely Maybe
  • DNA Science
  • PLOS ECR Community
  • All Models Are Wrong
  • About PLOS Blogs

Impact AND credibility matter when researchers evaluate research

Scrabble squares spelling out the word "assess"

by Veronique Kiermer, Iain Hrynaszkiewicz, & James Harney.

Today we’ve posted a report , along with accompanying data, on qualitative research we conducted about how researchers assess the credibility and impact of research. This study, which has not yet been peer reviewed, was supported by a grant from the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation and conducted with the assistance of the American Society for Cell Biology . The findings will inform future PLOS activities to support improved research assessment practices — specifically to support efforts to move emphasis towards individual research outputs and away from journal-level metrics. 

As we wrote in October 2020, we are interested in how researchers evaluate research outputs when (1) conducting their own research, and (2) when they take part in committees for hiring or grant review. In particular, we were interested in how researchers make judgments about the credibility and impact of the research outputs — including papers, preprints, research data — that they encounter in these contexts.

We interviewed 52 cell biology researchers.  Our approach focused on the goals they are trying to achieve (e.g.”identify impactful research to read”), rather than the tools they are presently using to carry out these tasks. By focusing on researchers’ goals (the what ) rather than how they are achieving them, we sought to better understand how we might influence those practices. This qualitative research will be followed by survey work to better quantify our findings. This will provide insights into opportunities for better solutions for improved research assessment. In particular, we’ll understand what signals of credibility and impact might provide researchers with more useful ways than journal impact factor or journal prestige to assess the quality and credibility of individual studies and individual researchers.

Our results confirmed our initial hypothesis that the credibility (or trustworthiness) of research outputs is the central concern for researchers when conducting their own research, and that impact was a strong focus when researchers are part of hiring or grant review committees. But we established that researchers also assess attributes of research outputs related to reproducibility, quality, and novelty. 

In addition, we found that researchers said they assessed credibility in committees more frequently than we anticipated, given that impact considerations — including journal impact factor — are prevalent in committee guidance and research assessment objectives (see for example McKiernan et al . (2019), Niles et al. (2020), Alperin et al. (2020), and Sugimoto & Larivière (2018)).

Our interviews confirmed that convenient proxies for credibility and impact, usually those based on journals, are used pervasively and are common in both research discovery and committee activities. 

Our research also indicates that when researchers inspect publications to evaluate credibility they try to minimize the amount of time they spend reading and understanding publications. Their tactics included selective reading of the abstracts, figures, and methods sections. Sometimes they said that they also look for signals such as whether data was available and had been reused, whether peer-reviewed versions of preprints have been published, and whether open peer review reports were available. 

Insights that help us better understand what researchers’ goals are and how they make judgements about credibility when discovering and reading research may offer opportunities to provide more reliable signals that help them with these tasks, yet are better tailored for credibility judgments than journal-level metrics. The stated importance of assessing credibility by researchers who participate in research assessment committees also suggests an opportunity for funders and institutions to better align their guidelines with the practice and motivations of committee members. 

After our follow-up survey work to validate these preliminary findings, we will report back and hope that this research will help others in the understanding and development of better methods of research assessment.

We’re pleased to once again annual reporting from the Plan S Price & Service Transparency Framework for 2022…

Written by Lindsay Morton Over 4 years: 74k+ eligible articles. Nearly 85k signed reviews. More than 30k published peer review history packages…

Access to raw scientific data enhances understanding, enables replication and reanalysis, and increases trust in published research. The vitality and utility of…

Library homepage

  • school Campus Bookshelves
  • menu_book Bookshelves
  • perm_media Learning Objects
  • login Login
  • how_to_reg Request Instructor Account
  • hub Instructor Commons
  • Download Page (PDF)
  • Download Full Book (PDF)
  • Periodic Table
  • Physics Constants
  • Scientific Calculator
  • Reference & Cite
  • Tools expand_more
  • Readability

selected template will load here

This action is not available.

Humanities LibreTexts

2.7: Evaluating the Quality and Credibility of Your Research

  • Last updated
  • Save as PDF
  • Page ID 6613

  • Steven D. Krause
  • Eastern Michigan University

Finding evidence that answers a question is only the first part of the research process. You also have to evaluate the quality and credibility of your research. Inevitably, as we’ve already seen in this chapter, you do this as you consider the origins of your research—primary versus secondary research, scholarly versus popular sources, the Internet, and so forth. But evaluating the quality and credibility of your research is more subtle and complicated than just determining the source of the evidence. Consider again the example from the beginning of this chapter about deciding which computer to buy. One of the things you would have to weigh is the credibility of the information you received from your friends compared to the information you received from a salesperson at the computer store. You can probably count on your friends to be trustworthy and honest, but they might not know much about computers. Conversely, while a salesperson might know a lot about computers, you may be uncertain to what extent you can trust him to give you the best advice. The salesperson wants to sell you a computer, which means that his motivations might be consciously or unconsciously influencing the information he is providing you.

Who should you trust? We have all been in situations like this, and there is no easy way to answer that question. Chances are, you’ll make your computer decision based on your interpretation of the evidence and based on what you perceive to be the reliability and credibility of your different sources. If someone else were faced with the same computer decision and the same evidence, they might make a different choice. That is why there are different kinds of computers on the market and that is why different people can do the same sort of research about “the best” computer and why they can arrive at different conclusions.

Academic research is not much different in the sense that different researchers, considering the same or similar evidence, often arrive at different conclusions. Academic research rarely provides clear answers in the sense of definitively knowing the “rights” and “wrongs” about some issue. Not all academics think that computer hacking is wrong (or right), that the solution to commercial over-fishing is strict international control, or that F. Scott Fitzgerald’s novel The Great Gatsby depicts the connection between material goods and the American dream. Rather, there are debates about these issues, differences of interpretation and opinion that result from different researchers looking at the same evidence.

Furthermore, the debates about differences of opinion on how to interpret evidence are good and healthy because these discussions further our understanding of complex issues. If we all agreed that something was true, then there would be no point in conducting research and writing about it. Indeed, if we all agreed about everything and had all of our questions answered as well as we thought possible, there would be no point to education at all!

Ultimately, there is no easy formula for evaluating the credibility and reliability of research. But there are some basic questions you should ask about your all of your evidence to ensure it is reliable and credible:

  • Who wrote it?

What do you think motivated the writer?

Where was it published, when was it written.

Who wrote or said it?

Is there an author named with the evidence?

If your evidence does not name the author, it might still be reliable, especially if you have confidence about where the evidence was published. However, most credible and reliable publications tell readers who wrote the articles they contain.

On Web pages and other Internet-based sources, it can sometimes be tricky to find the name of the Web page’s author. Many web sites don’t name an author, which, given the nature of the Web, should send up red flags for you as a researcher regarding the credibility of the evidence. But like print publications, more credible Web pages will include the name of the page’s writer. Be sure to look for the writer’s name throughout the particular page (including the bottom) and related pages within the Web site.

What are the qualifications of the author?

Does he or she seem to be an expert in the field?

Have he or she written about this topic before?

Are there other experiences that seem to uniquely qualify him or her as a reliable and credible source on this topic?

Many academic publications will give a lot of detail about their authors, including their degrees and academic training, the institution where they work (if they are a college professor or instructor), and other publications they have had in the past. Popular sources tend to include less information about their writers, though they too will often indicate in a byline (where the writer’s name is listed in a magazine or newspaper article) if the writer is a reporter, contributing editor, or editor for a particular subject.

Credible web sources will also describe the qualifications of the source’s author or authors. If you can find an author’s name on a Web site but you can’t find anything about their qualifications on their research subject, you should be suspicious about what that research has to say.

Have you come across the writer based on some of the other research you have done?

After you have conducted a bit of research on your topic, you might find yourself coming across the same authors writing similar articles in different publications. You might also find different publications referring to the author or her work, which would suggest that the author is indeed reliable and credible in her field. After all, if other articles and writers refer positively to a particular writer or her articles again and again, then it seems likely that the often-referred-to writer is credible.

Understanding and trusting the expertise of the author of your evidence is probably the most crucial test of credibility and reliability of that evidence.

Simply put, academics find evidence that comes from an author who is a credible expert to be much more persuasive than evidence that does not come from an expert.

For example, while my mom is a reliable source of information regarding many different topics, it would do you little good for me to interview her for an academic research project about the problems of over-fishing. Mind you, I value my mom’s thoughts and wisdom, and she might have some things to say about the effects of decreased catches of fish that I find insightful. However, because my mom doesn’t have any expertise about commercial fishing and because she doesn’t know anything more (or less) about it than most people, most of the readers of my research project won’t be persuaded by what she has to say.

On the other hand, my mother was a hospice work for many years, working with terminally ill patients and their families. If I were conducting research about the advantages and disadvantages of hospice care for terminally ill patients, my mom might be a very interesting and credible source.

Is the writer identified with a particular organization or group that might have a specific interest in the subject of the writing?

This can often be the source of conscious or unconscious bias. An obvious example: a writer who is identified as a member of the National Riflemen’s Association, which represents a variety of Americans particularly interested in protecting the right to own guns, will certainly have a different view on gun ownership than a member of The Center to Prevent Handgun Violence, an organization working to enact gun control legislation.

You need to be particularly careful with Web-based sources of research when considering the writer’s affiliation with different groups or organizations. There have been numerous incidents where Web page writers falsely claimed their Web pages were affiliated with particular groups or causes.

Does the writer identify himself or herself with an explicit political group or party?

Considering a writer’s politics is particularly important when thinking about the credibility of a Web site. Besides the ease with which a writer can misrepresent themselves or others, the low cost and wide reach of the Web has also made it an attractive forum for hate groups, terrorists, and other “fringe” political movements. This doesn’t automatically mean the information you find on reactionary or radical Web sites is wrong; however, writers with particularly strong and extreme politics frequently present information that is biased to the point of inaccuracy.

Of course, while it is important to consider why a writer wrote about her subject and to think about how her motivations impact how she wrote about his or her subject, having a particular bias or motivation doesn’t automatically lead to a lack of credibility or reliability.

Was the piece of writing published in an academic or non-academic source? A book, a journal, a magazine, etc.? I’ve already discussed this a great deal in this chapter; generally speaking, academic sources are considered more credible than non-academic sources, and print-based sources are generally considered more credible than web-based sources.

But there are some more subtle tests of credibility and reliability concerning where a piece of research was published. For example, single-authored or co-authored scholarly books on a particular subject might be more regarded as more credible than a scholarly journal article because books go into much greater detail on topics than journal articles.

Are you familiar with the publication? If you are a new researcher to a particular field of study this can be a difficult question to answer since you might not have heard of some of the more well-known and credible publications known in that field. But once you get to know the field better (which will inevitably be the case as you conduct more research on your topic), chances are you will begin to realize certain publications are seen by experts in the field as more credible than others.

Last, but far from least, the date of publication can dramatically effect the credibility of your research. Obviously, this is especially important for date-sensitive research topics. If you were writing a research project about the Internet and the World Wide Web, chances are any research older than about 1990 or so would be of limited use since the Web literally did not exist before 1990.

But other potentially less obvious topics of research have date sensitive components to them. For example, if you were doing research on cigarette smoking or drunk driving, you would have to be careful about evaluating the credibility of research from the 1970s or 1960s or earlier since cultural “norms” in the United States for both smoking and drinking have changed a great deal.

Knowing (or rather, not knowing) the date of publication of a piece of research is yet another thing to be worried about when evaluating the credibility of Web-based sources. Many Web sites do not include any information about the date of publication or the date when the page was last updated. This means that you have no way of knowing when the information on that dateless page was published.

The date of publication is a key piece of information, the sort of thing that is always included in more print sources. Again, just because the date of publication or update is missing from a Web site does not automatically discount it as a credible source; however, it should make you suspicious.

Exercise 1.5

Working alone or collaboratively in small groups, consider a variety of different types of research—articles from scholarly and non-scholarly sources, newspaper articles, books, web sites, and other types of evidence. Using the criteria discussed here, how would you rate the quality and credibility of your research? Which of your sources seems the most reliable? Are there any pieces of evidence that, upon closer examination, do not seem credible or reliable?

Evidence Quality and Credibility Checklist

  • The writer’s name
  • Qualifications
  • Expertise in the field
  • Previous publications on the topic
  • Unique experiences of the writer

Why did the source write or say it?

  • Association with an organization or group
  • The writer’s stated or implied politics

Where (what source) was it published?

  • Academic/scholarly source versus non-academic/popular source
  • Prior knowledge of publication

When was it published or said?

And when it comes to evidence from the ‘net and World Wide Web…

  • It’s still important to know who wrote it, why you think they wrote it, where you found it online, and when was it published.
  • If you don’t know the answers to the who/why/where/when questions, you should be skeptical of the evidence.
  • Don’t be fooled by Web sites that “look” real, because…
  • Anybody can publish information on the Web, no matter what that information is. Unlike most scholarly and many non-scholarly publications, Web writers don’t have to have the work reviewed by editors and publishers to reach an audience.
  • The Internet and the World Wide Web are still good places to find research. You just have to be a bit more careful with them.

Is My Source Credible?

Ai literacy, more information on ai, web domains in scholarly research, truth in the news, oers (open educational resources).

The definition of a credible source can change depending on the discipline, but in general, for academic writing, a credible source is one that is unbiased and is backed up with evidence. When writing a research paper, always use and cite credible sources. Use this checklist to determine if an article is credible or not:

  • Is the source in-depth  (more than a page or two), with an abstract, a reference list, and documented research or data?
  • Who is the audience  (researchers, professors, students, general population, professionals in a specific field)?
  • What is the purpose of the source  (provide information or report original research or experiments, to entertain or persuade the general public, or provide news or information specific to a trade or industry)?
  • Who are the authors?  Are they respected and well-known in the field? Are they easily identifiable? Have they written about other similar topics? What are their credentials?
  • Is the source reputable?  Is it published on a reputable, non-biased website, or in a peer-reviewed, scholarly journal, and not from a newspaper, blog, or wiki?
  • Is the source current for your topic?
  • Is there supporting documentation  (graphs, charts, illustrations or other supporting documentation)?

Below are guidelines and tips for becoming "AI literate" --that is, gaining skills that enable you to use AI effectively, ethically, safely, and in a way that supports your learning.

In general, if you do use AI for any of your UMGC classwork, please keep these important considerations in mind: 

Be open and honest about your use of AI  

If you use an AI tool like ChatGPT for classroom work, acknowledge it, so that your professor knows. 

For example, if you use ChatGPT to draft a classroom discussion post for you, add a statement like this to the post, so you’re completely transparent about having used AI: “I used ChatGPT to write a first draft of this post. I critically evaluated the accuracy of ChatGPT’s draft, verifying facts and ideas, then I largely rewrote the AI draft in my own words and phrases.” 

If needed, you can even cite an AI tool like ChatGPT in your reference list for a writing assignment. Here are guidelines: APA ,  MLA ,  Chicago .

Verify AI content 

AI tools like ChatGPT are imperfect. They are known to create content that simply isn’t true. 

If you use AI to generate a piece of writing for you, you have to critically evaluate everything that it wrote. Use a search engine like Google to check any facts or ideas generated by AI. 

The one thing you can never do is simply put a prompt into ChatGPT for a classroom assignment, then copy and paste the AI-created content and submit it to your professor as is. That is the opposite of the kind of engaged, active learning that helps students grow intellectually. When AI does the work for you, you miss out on the learning, which can have repercussions for your future classes and career.

If you use AI, think of it as an assistant who’s efficient but not a real expert on the subject matter. You have to carefully check what AI wrote before using it as a starting point for your work. 

Add your own research and ideas

Even if you acknowledge that you used ChatGPT and checked the content's truthfulness, you cannot (as stated above) simply turn in the ChatGPT content as your entire assignment. Use ChatGPT as a basis for classwork--for example, ask ChatGPT for good research topics, or have it help you create an outline for a paper--but do not use ChatGPT for an assignment without adding your own research and ideas.

ChatGPT can help you, but the essential, meaningful core of any paper or other assignment is your work and your thought, not whatever fundamental elements you prompted ChatGPT for.

Don’t overshare with AI  

ChatGPT and other AI tools are like any other website where you type in information. Be careful to keep your personal information safe. Use a secure computer network when interacting with AI so that hackers cannot intercept information. And never type in sensitive, personal information when you query AI. For example, if you use ChatGPT to research Social Security, don’t type in your own SSN!  

Acknowledgment   

The UMGC library used ChatGPT to help write this section on AI Literacy! We typed in the prompt, "Write 2-3 paragraphs on how college students can ethically and safely use ChatGPT for research and writing.” ChatGPT responded with a brief essay that pointed out the three salient guidelines above: be open and honest, verify, don’t overshare. The library checked the accuracy of what ChatGPT wrote, and then we rewrote it extensively in our own words and phrases. We also included additional ideas, facts, and examples. 

For more information, see our comprehensive guide on  Artificial Intelligence .

Where does your source come from?

  • government or military (.gov or .mil)  - Government or military websites end in .gov or .mil, and in general are reliable sources on the web. However, beware of political sites used to sway public opinion.
  • university (.edu)  - University websites end in .edu, and are usually reliable. Use these sites with caution, checking for credibility and authority.
  • company website (.com)  - Company websites generally end in .com. These sites are great for information about a particular company. However be aware that company websites are used to promote, so be sure the information is non-biased.
  • special interest (.org)  - While many professional organizations end in .org, there are also many .orgs that are biased and promote a specific agenda.

Video Tutorial Evaluating Websites  (5:16)

The Center for News Literacy  makes the case for being smart consumers of online news. "The most profound communications revolution since the invention of Gutenberg’s printing press seems to make it harder, not easier, to determine the truth. The digital revolution is characterized by a flood of information and misinformation that news consumers can access from anywhere at any time... This superabundance of information has made it imperative that citizens learn to judge the reliability of news reports and other sources of information that is passed along their social networks."

Check the facts

There are many fact-checking websites available online. Before using one of these websites, remember, a good fact checking service will use neutral wording and will provide unbiased, authoritative sources to support their claims. Look for the criteria below when searching for the facts.

Evaluate sources

  • Does the website have an "About Us" section? Does it disclose a source of funding? Knowing this information enables you to judge the website's purpose and viewpoint.
  • Is information cited so that you can track down the source and verify it?
  • What evidence is used to prove the author's point? Is the evidence reliable, and is it used logically?
  • For more tips , see the sections above.
  • Websites that contain the suffix "lo" (e.g., Newslo) or that end in ".com.co". These often present false information for satirical or other purposes.
  • Websites that urge you to  dox  an individual or organization
  • Websites that have amateurish design, use ALL CAPS, and try to play on your emotions Those are often signs that information is not trustworthy and that you should research it further via other sources
  • Memes making the rounds on Facebook or other social media sites Try googling the topic of a meme or other doubtful story: if it is a legitimate news story, you'll probably find it covered by an established source like a major newspaper or TV news channel
  • Clickbait Sensationalist headlines and odd photos whose purpose is not to publish legitimate news but to increase traffic at a website

Burst your filter bubble

Web browsers and social media sites employ algorithms that feed you information you've shown a preference for. This so called "filter bubble" connects us to news that tends to reinforce our set views, rather than challenging us with new ideas. When conducting research for class or simply making up your mind on an issue, try these strategies:

  • Seek credible information from both sides of an issue : conservative and liberal; religious and atheist; industrialized and developing nations; etc.
  • UMGC Library OneSearch
  • Talk to people who hold views different from yours.  That solution is offered by Eli Pariser, who  wrote a book  and  did a Ted talk  on filter bubbles.

(Thanks to the following excellent guides on which we've drawn for part of the above content:  Bristol Community College  and  Stark State Digital Library .)

Open educational resources (OERs) are materials that are licensed for free use, with the purpose of teaching or learning. Use this checklist to find credible and useful OER's:

  • Does the resource have a CC (Creative Commons) license where the resource can be reused or shared?
  • Who is the author and what are his or her credentials? Have they written other content on this topic? Are they a professor or expert in the subject they are writing about?
  • Is the content non-biased?
  • Last Updated: Jan 25, 2024 8:35 AM
  • URL: https://libguides.umgc.edu/credibility
  • First Time Freshman
  • Transfer Student
  • Art Institute Transfer
  • High School Student
  • Military Student
  • International Student
  • Returning Student
  • Current Student

Four guidelines students should follow when determining credibility of research

Four guidelines students should follow when determining credibility of research

  • November 18, 2020

*This story was updated and edited by Jenna Heil on Tuesday, October 25, 2022 for clarity and brevity.

When gathering sources for your next term paper or project, it is important to determine credibility of research. Credibility can be seen as an important aspect of establishing trustworthiness, but it does require additional research. It’s important to look at who the author is, their background and their education. You can check an author’s h-index score, which according to Bernard Becker Medical Library , is “an estimate of the importance, significance, and broad impact of cumulative research,” by using Google Scholar .

Finding reliable sources is vital for college students to succeed, so when in doubt, ask yourself if the source checks the box in the following areas:

1. Relevance Relevance is a key factor to consider when doing research. If you are studying Picasso’s blue period and come across an article about Paloma Picasso’s perfumes, ask yourself if this is relevant to your larger research project or paper. If not, it’s time to mark the resource as irrelevant and move on to different sources. If it is relevant, the source checks the first credibility requirement.

2. Authority Next, it’s time to determine the authority of the piece. Authority and credibility typically go hand in hand, but depending on the information you are looking for, authority can change. For example, a publication that focuses more on fashion design has authority in this section, but doesn’t necessarily have authority in art history. To ensure you are discovering the most authoritative academic journals, magazines or reports in your specific area of interest, we recommend utilizing RMCAD’s databases .

3. Accuracy You’re halfway there! The next credibility requirement is determining if the source is accurate. This can be tricky if you are new to a field of information. Determining accuracy requires reading and learning as much as possible about something before forming an opinion. We recommend using your best judgment when labeling something as accurate and think about what you already know when forming your final verdict of the information presented.

4. Purpose The final step is determining the purpose of the source, which requires you to learn why someone is presenting the information. A YouTube star might show creative and unique makeup techniques, but with the goal to sell makeup. A late night talk show interviewee might be selling their new movie. An opinion piece may demonstrate bias, whether it is obvious or not. These are all important things to determine.

Remember, when doing research, you want to find the best information to support your ideas, which requires careful evaluation of the information you gather. Keep in mind – relevance, authority, accuracy and purpose when determining credibility of research.

This piece was written with the help of Martha Neth from the SLC . The SLC welcomes students from all programs both on-campus and online who strive to do better in the classroom while perfecting their craft. Self-schedule an appointment with the SLC here or email the SLC at [email protected] .

Recent Blogs

  • Celebrating the Voices and Visions of 17 Black Artists
  • RMCAD PROFESSOR BRIDGES THE GAP BETWEEN CLASSROOM + GALLERY
  • 10 Must-See Public Art Spaces in Colorado
  • Creative Arsenal: Unveiling the Power of Art Tools
  • From Pen to Screen: The Transition from Traditional to Digital Illustration
  • Student Login

Join us in celebrating RMCAD’s 60th anniversary this school year! Learn more here.

Classes Starting Soon!

Rocky Mountain College of Art + Design Campus

No Application fee

Sago

What We Offer

With a comprehensive suite of qualitative and quantitative capabilities and 55 years of experience in the industry, Sago powers insights through adaptive solutions.

  • Recruitment
  • Communities
  • Methodify® Automated research
  • QualBoard® Digital Discussions
  • QualMeeting® Digital Interviews
  • Global Qualitative
  • Global Quantitative
  • In-Person Facilities
  • Research Consulting
  • Europe Solutions
  • Clinical Research
  • Human Factors
  • Neuromarketing Tools
  • Trial & Jury Consulting

Who We Serve

Form deeper customer connections and make the process of answering your business questions easier. Sago delivers unparalleled access to the audiences you need through adaptive solutions and a consultative approach.

  • Consumer Packaged Goods
  • Financial Services
  • Media Technology
  • Marketing Research

With a 55-year legacy of impact, Sago has proven we have what it takes to be a long-standing industry leader and partner. We continually advance our range of expertise to provide our clients with the highest level of confidence.​

  • Global Offices
  • Partnerships & Certifications
  • News & Media
  • Researcher Events

Steve Schlesinger, Quirks Lifetime Achievement Award

Sago Executive Chairman Steve Schlesinger to Receive Quirk’s Lifetime Achievement Award

16 ways to prepare for the next holiday campaign

16 Ways to Prepare for the Next Holiday Campaign

electric vehicle panel at sago

Sago Unveils Electric Vehicle Panel to Drive Industry Success

Drop into your new favorite insights rabbit hole and explore content created by the leading minds in market research.

  • Case Studies
  • Knowledge Kit

the deciders january 2024

The Deciders January 2024: Trump-Voting Women Who Oppose Dobbs

new years resolutions

The State of New Year’s Resolutions: A Closer Look at Mindsets and Habits

  • Get in touch

credibility definition research paper

  • Account Logins

credibility definition research paper

The Importance of Establishing Credibility in Qualitative Research

  • Resources , Blog

clock icon

Key Takeaways:

  • It’s essential to establish credibility in all of your qualitative research projects early on to have your findings considered valuable.
  • Strategies to build credibility in your qualitative research include triangulation, member checking, peer debriefing, thick description, reflexivity, saturation, and external audits.
  • Addressing issues such as bias, poor clarity, or lack of diversity in qualitative research projects also helps improve your overall research process.

Qualitative research is a type of research that involves exploring the subjective experiences and meanings of individuals. Unlike quantitative research focusing on measurable variables, qualitative research relies on data gathered through observation, interviews , and other methods to provide insight into complex human phenomena. However, the credibility of qualitative research can be questioned if the researcher fails to establish its trustworthiness. Therefore, establishing credibility in qualitative research cannot be overstated.   

This article aims to explore the significance of credibility in qualitative research , define the term, and discuss strategies for establishing credibility in research. By understanding the importance of credibility, you can ensure your data is trustworthy, your results are reliable, and your research is valid. Ultimately, this will contribute to improving the overall quality of qualitative research.  

In this Article:

Understanding credibility in qualitative research, triangulation, member checking, peer debriefing.

  • Thick Descrip tion

Reflexivity

External audits, need qualitative research you can trust.

Book a consultation with our team to find the high-quality solutions you need for your next project.

Request a consultation

Credibility is fundamental to any qualitative research study as the bedrock of reliable and trustworthy findings. Credibility refers to the degree to which your research can be deemed responsible and accurate. It safeguards against subjective experiences, emotions, and perspectives that may otherwise obscure the true nature of your research subject.  

It’s important to note that credibility and validity are two separate concepts, although they are often conflated. While validity refers to the extent to which your research measures what it claims to measure, credibility deals with the trustworthiness of your data collection and analysis methods. In other words, credibility is a measure of how well you can establish the accuracy and reliability of your findings.  

If your study lacks credibility, your findings will be dismissed as unreliable or unimportant. This is particularly relevant in qualitative research, where the subjective nature of your results may make them more susceptible to skepticism. However, several methods exist to establish credibility in your study, which we’ll explore more closely below.  

Prioritizing credibility in your qualitative research builds trust with your participants and fellow researchers and enhances your contribution to your field. Furthermore, your reliable and accurate findings help advance the body of knowledge in your area of study. Therefore, it is essential to remember that credibility is vital to conducting impactful and trustworthy qualitative research.  

Ultimately, the importance of credibility cannot be overstated in qualitative research, as it is the foundation for producing high-quality research that makes a difference in the world.  

Building C redibility in Q ualitative R esearch: Effective S trategies

Qualitative research can provide valuable insights and understanding of complex social phenomena. However, the credibility of qualitative research findings is often questioned due to the subjective nature of data collection and analysis. To address this issue, there are various strategies available to establish the credibility of your research.   

T riangulation is a powerful and effective strategy that significantly enhances the credibility of qualitative research. This technique involves using multiple sources or methods to collect and analyze data, thereby increasing the rigor and trustworthiness of the research findings. By combining different sources of information, such as interviews, observations, and focus groups, you can cross-check your results and ensure that your findings are consistent and reliable.  

This approach also helps to identify potential biases or limitations in the research and provides a more comprehensive understanding of the phenomenon being studied. Employing triangulation allows you to ensure your research is based on diverse perspectives and experiences, strengthening the credibility and impact of your findings.  

Another strategy used to build credibility is member checking. This is a powerful tool that validates the data’s accuracy and promotes a collaborative relationship between the researcher and the participants. This approach allows the participants to have a say in the research process, and their feedback is valuable in confirming the accuracy of the research findings.  

Member checking is done in various ways, such as sharing transcripts, summaries, or the entire research report with the participants. The participants can then review the information and provide feedback to you on any discrepancies, inaccuracies, or missing data. This process helps establish credibility and builds trust and rapport between the researcher and the participants.  

Additionally, member checking allows the participants to clarify or expand on their experiences, which can further enhance the richness and depth of the data.  

Peer debriefing is a valuable strategy for enhancing the credibility of qualitative research. It involves enlisting the help of other researchers, who are experts in the field, to review and provide feedback on the research process and findings. This process of critical evaluation helps to strengthen the research by identifying any weaknesses, biases, or limitations that may exist.  

Peer debriefing is an effective tool for ensuring that the data collected is accurate, relevant, and reflects the participants’ experiences.   

It’s important to note that peer debriefing is not just limited to reviewing research findings, but also includes evaluating the research process. This consists of the methodology, sampling strategy, and data collection techniques. By involving other researchers in this process, the research can be conducted with due diligence and rigor, ultimately increasing the overall quality of the study.  

Thick Description

Thick description is a qualitative research strategy that provides a comprehensive and detailed description of the research setting and participants. This approach helps you better understand the context of your project, including the cultural, historical, and social factors that may influence the phenomenon under study. The help of detailed descriptions of the research context and participants also ensures your findings are grounded in the realities of the social world you are studying.  

Thick descriptions also help you identify and explore your research topic’s complexities and nuances. For example, suppose you are studying the experiences of immigrants in a particular community; you may use thick descriptions to provide a detailed account of the cultural and social factors that shape their experiences. This helps uncover underlying patterns and themes that may not be immediately apparent and provides a deeper understanding of the respondents.  

Researchers’ biases and perspectives can influence the research process and findings in qualitative research, compromising the study’s credibility. Reflexivity is a strategy that aims to address this issue by encouraging you to reflect on your own biases and perspectives and account for them in the research process. This is achieved through keeping a research journal or memo, where you can reflect on your experiences, assumptions, and biases that may impact the research. Being transparent about your preferences and perspectives makes the research process more credible and trustworthy from the outset.  

Furthermore, reflexivity can lead to new insights and perspectives that may not have been considered otherwise. By acknowledging and accounting for your biases and perspectives, the research process becomes more transparent, and the findings are more trustworthy. Reflexivity also helps you build stronger relationships with participants by showing a willingness to listen and learn from their perspectives.  

Saturation is a crucial strategy in qualitative research to establish that the data collected is thorough and complete. In this strategy, you continue to collect data until you reach a point where no new information or insights are being revealed, indicating that you have reached saturation.   

The concept of saturation is fundamental in studies involving complex or nuanced phenomena with multiple perspectives. In such cases, reaching saturation helps confirm you comprehensively understand the studied topic. Saturation also allows you to identify and address any gaps in the data, which helps improve the overall quality of the research.  

Furthermore, reaching saturation increases the credibility and rigor of qualitative research, demonstrating a systematic and rigorous approach to data collection and analysis.

External audits are another useful strategy in building credibility and rigor in qualitative research. Independent third parties objectively evaluate the research process and findings, which helps ensure the investigation is conducted ethically and transparently. This also helps identify potential biases or limitations in the research and confirm that the findings are valid and reliable.   

External audits are critical in fields where research results can significantly impact policy or practice, such as healthcare or education. Reviews by third parties provide confidence that resulting policies and procedures are evidence-based and effective.  

Establishing credibility in qualitative research is essential for producing high-quality and reliable findings. To achieve credibility, you must use appropriate data collection and analysis methods, ensure transparency and clarity in the research process, and employ rigorous strategies for evaluating the quality of the research. By doing so, you enhance your potential to inform decision-making processes and advance knowledge in your field.   

Building credibility in your qualitative research is critical. It is a formality and a vital step towards producing trustworthy and valuable research that makes a difference in society.  

If you’re looking for reliable, high-quality quantitative and qualitative research solutions, Sago has an option to suit your needs. Our team is committed to helping you obtain the most accurate and reliable data possible, whether you need qualitative research facilities , recruitment , or digital tools .    

Contact us today to learn more about how we can help you achieve your research goals with confidence and accuracy.  

Build Credibility in Your Qual Research

Work with a trusted partner to establish credibility in your next qual project.

How Leading Brands Use Insights to Win Market Share

How Leading Brands Use Insights to Win Market Share

screener best practices

It’s Time to Change the Way We Write Screeners

A Closer Look at New Year’s Resolutions

A Closer Look at New Year’s Resolutions

swing voters project january 2024

The Swing Voter Project in Nevada – January 2024

recruiting participants webinar

OnDemand: The Secret Sauce to Finding Perfect Participants: Strategies for Recruiting Hard-to-Reach Audiences

hybrid research qualboard quallink

Unlock the Power of Hybrid Research with QualLink and External Survey Link

mod minutes webinar feb 2024

OnDemand: Moderator Minutes: Capitalize on the Power of Visual Collaboration

market research recruitment

Market Research Recruitment: Which Approach Is Right for You?

employment relationship webinar

OnDemand: Why the Employment Relationship Should Be at the Center of Your Organization

swing voters, december 2023

The Swing Voter Project in North Carolina – December 2023

Take a deep dive into your favorite market research topics

credibility definition research paper

How can we help support you and your research needs?

credibility definition research paper

BEFORE YOU GO

Have you considered how to harness AI in your research process? Check out our on-demand webinar for everything you need to know

credibility definition research paper

What makes an online review credible? A systematic review of the literature and future research directions

  • Open access
  • Published: 05 December 2022

Cite this article

You have full access to this open access article

  • K. Pooja   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-7735-8308 1 &
  • Pallavi Upadhyaya   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-4523-2051 2  

9764 Accesses

2 Citations

1 Altmetric

Explore all metrics

Online reviews of products and services are strategic tools for e-commerce platforms, as they aid in consumers’ pre-purchase decisions. Past research studies indicate online reviews impact brand image and consumer behaviour. With several instances of fake reviews and review manipulations, review credibility has become a concern for consumers and service providers. In recent years, due to growing webcare attitude among managers, the need for maintaining credible online reviews on the e-commerce platforms has gained attention. Though, there are several empirical studies on review credibility, the findings are diverse and contradicting. Therefore, in this paper, we systematically review the literature to provide a holistic view of antecedents of online review credibility. We examine variables, methods, and theoretical perspective of online review credibility research using 69 empirical research papers shortlisted through multi-stage selection process. We identify five broad groups of antecedents: source characteristics, review characteristics, consumer characteristics, interpersonal determinants in the social media platform and product type. Further, we identify research issues and propose directions for future research. This study contributes to existing knowledge in management research by providing the holistic understanding of the “online review credibility” construct and helps understand what factors lead to consumers’ belief in the credibility of online review. The insights gained would provide managers adequate cues to design effective online review systems.

Similar content being viewed by others

credibility definition research paper

The Influence of Online Ratings and Reviews in Consumer Buying Behavior: A Systematic Literature Review

credibility definition research paper

Perceived Credibility of Online Consumer Reviews: an Investigation Across Three Service Categories

credibility definition research paper

An Extended Abstract: To Trust, or Not to Trust—That Is the Question: A Cross-Cultural Study of the Drivers and Moderators of Online Review Trustworthiness

Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.

1 Introduction

Online reviews of products and services have become an integral component of product information on e-commerce platforms and are often used as strategic instrument to gain competitive advantage (Gutt et al. 2019 ). They are influential in marketing communications and help shoppers identify the products (Chen and Xie 2008 ) and make informed pre-purchase decisions (Hong and Pittman 2020 ; Eslami et al. 2018 ; Klaus and Changchit 2019 ; Reyes- Menendez et al. 2019 ). In the absence of physical interaction with the product, they aid consumers to take decisions based on experiences shared by previous users on the e-commerce platform (Klaus and Changchit 2019 ). Reviews facilitate the free flow of consumer-generated content that help managers promote their products or brand or company (Smith 2011 ). The products that get at least 5 reviews have a 270% higher conversion rate compared to the products with no reviews (Collinger et al. 2017 ).

With the growing popularity of online reviews, there is an overwhelming interest among researchers to understand the characteristics of reviews and reviewer that contribute to the credibility of online reviews (Cheung et al. 2009 ; Chih et al. 2020 ; Fang and Li 2016 ; Jimenez and Mendoza 2013 ; Liu and Ji 2018 ; Mumuni et al. 2019 ; Qiu et al. 2012 ; Tran and Can 2020 ; Yan et al. 2016 ). The credibility of online information and digital media is often contested, due to the lack of quality control standards and ambiguity concerning the ownership of the information with the convergence of information and media channels (Flanagin and Metzger 2007 ). As all online reviews cannot be trusted (Johnson and Kaye 2016 ) and when sources are uncertain (Lim and Van Der Heide 2015 ) consumers often use cues to assess review credibility. The credibility issue also arises due to review manipulation practices by asking the reviewers to write a positive review in favour of the brand and to write a negative review attacking the competitor's product, by incentivizing the reviewer (Wu et al. 2015 ).

Recent meta-analysis studies on electronic word of mouth (eWOM) communications have focused on factors impacting eWOM providing behaviour (Ismagilova et al. 2020a ), the effect of eWOM on intention to buy (Ismagilova et al. 2020b ), the effect of source credibility on consumer behaviour (Ismagilova et al. 2020c ), factors affecting adoption of eWOM message (Qahri-Saremi and Montazemi 2019 ) and eWOM elasticity (You et al. 2015 ). Moran and Muzellec ( 2017 ) and recently Verma and Dewani ( 2020 ) have proposed four-factor frameworks for eWOM Credibility. Zheng ( 2021 ) presented a systematic review of literature on the classification of online consumer reviews.

Even though there are literature reviews and meta-analysis on eWOM, they address different research questions or constructs in eWOM and no attempt to synthesise the antecedents of online review credibility, in the context of products and services has been made. Xia et al. ( 2009 ) posit that all eWOM are not formulated equally and classify eWOM as “many to one” (e.g., No of ratings, downloads calculated by computers), “many to many” (e.g., Discussion forums), “one to many” (e.g., Text-based product reviews), and “one to one” (instant messaging). Studies confirm that the effort to process and persuasiveness of different forms of eWOM vary (Weisfeld -Spolter et al. 2014 ). Senecal and Nantel ( 2004 ) argue that consumers spend significantly more time and effort to process online reviews than any other form of eWOM. Hence understanding credibility of the online reviews and the factors that influence credibility is important for managers of e-commerce platforms.

Our objective in this paper is three-fold: First, we revisit, review, and synthesize 69 empirical research on online review credibility that focuses on textual online reviews of products and services (“one to many” form of eWOM). Second, we identify the antecedents of review credibility. Finally, we identify gaps and propose future research directions in the area of online reviews and online review credibility. From theoretical perspective, this systematic review synthesises the antecedents of review credibility, in the context of online reviews of products and services. As in past literature, eWOM and online reviews are interchangeably used, we carefully analysed both the eWOM credibility and online review credibility and selected studies that focused on reviews of products and services. Studies on sponsored posts on social media, blogs, the brand initiated eWOM communication were excluded. From managerial perspective, this study would aid managers of e-commerce platforms, a holistic view of review credibility and aid in the design of online review systems.

1.1 Defining online review credibility

Mudambi and Schuff ( 2010 ) define online reviews as “peer-generated product evaluations, posted on company or third-party websites”. Person-to-person communication via the internet is eWOM. An online review is a form of eWOM. There are various channels of eWOM such as social media, opinion forums, review platforms, and blogs. Past literature posits that credible eWOM is one that is perceived as believable, true, or factual (Fogg et al. 2001 ; Tseng and Fogg. 1999 ).

The perception a consumer holds regarding the veracity of online review is considered as the review credibility (Erkan and Evans 2016 ). Several research studies (Cheung et al. 2009 ; Dong 2015 ) define credible online reviews as a review that the consumers perceive as truthful, logical, and believable. Past research defines credibility to be associated with consumers’ perception and evaluation and not as a direct measure of the reality of reviews (Chakraborty and Bhat 2018a ). The credibility of online reviews is described as consumers’ assessment of the accuracy (Zha et al. 2015 ) and validity of the reviews (Chakraborty and Bhat 2017 ).

2 Research methods

This paper uses the systematic literature review method (Linnenluecke et al. 2020 ; Moher et al. 2009 ; Neumann 2021 ; Okoli 2015 ; Snyder 2019 ) to synthesize the research findings. Liberati et al. ( 2009 ) explains systematic review as a process for identifying, critically appraising relevant research and analyzing data. Systematic reviews differ from meta-analysis with respect to methods of analysis used. While meta-analysis focuses primarily on quantitative and statistical analysis; systematic reviews use both quantitative and qualitative analysis and critical appraisal of the literature. In a systematic review, pre-specified protocols on inclusion and exclusion of the articles are used to identify the evidence that fits the criteria to answer the research question (Snyder 2019 ). In this paper, we follow the steps proposed by Okoli ( 2015 ) for conducting the systematic review process and the recommendations given by Fisch and Block ( 2018 ) to improve the quality of the review. The purpose of our systematic literature review is to identify and synthesize the antecedents of online review credibility.

The study uses journal articles from two popular research databases (Scopus and Web of Science) to conduct a systematic search of articles on review credibility/eWOM credibility. As online reviews are interchangeably used with other related concepts such as eWOM, user-generated content, and online recommendations in the literature, we used a diverse pool of sixteen keywords (refer Fig.  1 ) for the initial search. The keywords were identified through an initial review of literature and articles having these terms in the title, abstract, and keywords were chosen. Initial search and document retrieval were done in January 2022. Studies published till October 2022 were later updated in the paper. A set of filters using inclusion and exclusion criteria were applied to arrive at a focused set of relevant papers. The full-length empirical articles in English language, related to business management and allied areas were included for systematic review. Using multiple phases of filtering and reviewing (refer Fig.  1 ), we shortlisted the final list of 69 empirical papers that used either review credibility or eWOM credibility as a construct with a focus on reviews of products and services. In line with previous systematic reviews (Kuckertz and Brändle 2022 ; Nadkarni and Prügl 2021 ; Walter 2020) we excluded work in progress papers, conference papers, dissertations or books from the analysis.

figure 1

Systematic review process

2.1 Descriptive analysis of empirical research on online review credibility

The 69 empirical research articles included 36 experimental design studies and 33 cross-sectional survey-based studies. Figure  2 summarises the review credibility publication trends in the last decade with their research design choices.

figure 2

Research designs of Review credibility articles

Research on review credibility has used samples from diverse geographical regions, the highest number of studies being in the USA, China, and Taiwan (refer to Table 1 ). Table 2 and Table 3 summarizes the sample and analysis methods used in these studies. Even though online review is commonly used in tourism and hospitality, there are only six studies examining review credibility.

3 Theoretical perspectives in review credibility literature

Most of the empirical research (88 percent) on review credibility has used theories to explain the antecedents of review credibility. A total of 48 different theories have been invoked in explaining various dimensions of review credibility antecedents.

We observed five broad groups of theories from the underlying 48 theories that contribute to understanding the different aspects of online review credibility assessment by consumers. We discuss them in the following sections.

3.1 Information processing in online review

Several theories provide a lens to understand ways in which individual consumes or processes the information available in the online reviews. The popular theories discussed in the review credibility literature such as the elaboration likelihood model, heuristic—systematic model, accessibility—diagnosticity theory, and attribution theory describe how an individual processes information.

Building on the elaboration likelihood model (ELM) several studies have examined characteristics of online review content such as argument quality (Cheung et al. 2009 ; Hussain et al. 2018 ; Thomas et al. 2019 ), review sidedness (Cheung et al. 2012 ; Brand and Reith 2022 ), review consistency (Brand et al. 2022 ; Brand and Reith 2022 ; Cheung et al. 2012 ; Thomas et al. 2019 ), and source credibility (Cheung et al. 2012 ; Hussain et al. 2018 ; Reyes- Menendez et al. 2019 ). These dimensions are also examined using the heuristics-systematic model (HSM). These two theories are similar in their function as both ELM and HSM posit two routes (the central vs. peripheral route and the systematic vs. heuristic route) for judging the persuasiveness of messages (Chang and Wu 2014 ). In literature, the elaboration likelihood model has received more empirical support compared to the heuristics systematic model. The yale persuasive communication theory covers a wider array of factors that can affect the acceptance of the message (Chang and Wu 2014 ). This theory has been adopted by studies to evaluate the relationship between these factors with review credibility.

The psychological choice model posits that the effectiveness of online reviews gets influenced by environmental factors like product characteristics and consumer’s past experience. These factors influences the credibility assessment by the consumer and purchase decision based on their interaction with the online reviews.

Consumers’ use of information for judgment also depends upon the accessibility and diagnosticity of the input as proposed in accessibility-diagnosticity theory. This theory helps in understanding the utilization of information by individuals and posits that the information in hand has more value than information stored as a form of memory (Tsao and Hseih 2015 ; Chiou et al. 2018 ). The attribution theory helps in understanding the nature of the causal conclusion drawn by the consumers in the presence of negative and positive information (Chiou et al. 2018 ).

Overall, the theories related to information processing have contributed well to understanding the influence of strength of the message, argument, valence, source reputation, consistency, persuasiveness, and diagnosability.

Theories such as media richness theory (Tran and Can 2020 ) and language expectancy theory (Seghers et al. 2021 ) provided insights into the relevance of the quality of the information shared in online reviews. Several other theories focus on the information adoption process (ex. Information adoption mode, informational influence theory, dual-process theory). For example, cognitive cost theory has been used to explain review adoption due to the effect of different levels of cognitive involvement of the consumer when they are exposed to reviews from different platforms simultaneously (Yan et al. 2016 ).

The contribution of technology acceptance model (TAM) to the review credibility literature is operationalized in the study by Liu and Ji ( 2018 ). Hussain et al. ( 2018 ) uses TAM to complement ELM in the computer-mediated communication adoption process.

We observe that the theories in information processing in the online review have provided a theoretical lens to understand the role of the quality of the information in the online review credibility assessment.

3.2 Trust in online reviews

Studies have examined the trust formation and perception of the trustworthiness of the source of the information in online reviews using the theoretical lens of trust transfer theory and source credibility theory. Virtual communities do not support the face-to-face interaction between sender and receiver of the message. Therefore, the receiver has to rely on cues such as the reputation of the source, credibility of the source, and the reviewer profile. These cues are observed as some of the antecedents of review credibility. Trust transfer theory contributes to our understanding of how online reviews shared on a trusted e-commerce website makes the consumer consider that review is credible compared to the review shared on a website that is not trustworthy (Park and Lee 2011 ). Source credibility theory suggests trustworthiness and expertise of the source of the review have a positive relationship with review credibility (Mumuni et al. 2019 ; Shamhuyenhanzva et al. 2016 ). These theories note that when a person perceives the origin of online review as trustworthy, he would be more likely to consume the information.

3.3 Socio-cultural influence in online reviews

Individuals’ innate values or beliefs help shape their behaviour. As online reviews are more complex social conversations (Kozinets 2016 ) there is a need to gain perspectives on how these conversations differ in terms of country and culture (Bughin et al. 2010 ). The theories such as culture theory, and Hall’s categorization provide a lens to examine the influence of culture on online review consumption and assessment of review credibility (Brand and Reith 2022 ; Chiou et al. 2014 ; Luo et al. 2014 ).

In general, attention paid to understanding the influence of cultural factors on online reviews is very limited (Mariani et al. 2019 ; Gao et al. 2017 ). However, much attention has been given to understanding the role of social influence through the use of theories like social influence theory, role theory, social identity theory, social information processing theory, socio-cognitive systems theory, and value theory. The most prominent theory related to this theme is the social influence theory. Social influence theory emphasizes the social pressure faced by consumers to form a decision based on online reviews (Jha and Shah 2021 ). Social identity theory posits that an individual may reduce uncertainty by choosing to communicate with other people who share similar values and social identities (Kusumasondjaja et al. 2012 ).

Social information processing theory posits the importance of the closeness between review writer and reader on social networking as an alternative cue, in the absence of physical interaction (Lim and Van Der Heide 2015 ). The social standings of an individual in terms of the number of friends on social networks (Lim and Van Der Heide 2015 ), nonverbal cues such as profile photos (Xu 2014 ), and their impact on review credibility have been studied using this theory. In a nutshell, these theories explain individuals’ belief that gets shaped due to the influence of the social groups and how it impacts the credibility of the review.

3.4 Consumer attitude and behaviour towards online reviews

Consumers attitude towards computer-mediated communications and online reviews have been examined in past studies (Chakraborty and bhat 2017 ; Chih et al. 2020 ; Hussain et al. 2018 ; Isci and Kitapci 2020 ; Jha and Shah 2021 ) using several theoretical frameworks. Theories such as attitude—behaviour linkage, cognition-affection-behaviour (CAB) model, expectancy-disconfirmation theory (EDT), needs theory, regulatory focus theory, search and alignment theory, stimulus- organism-response model, theory of planned behaviour, yale attitude change model, associative learning theory were used in literature to examine the factors that influence the formation of the attitude and behaviour towards online reviews. These factors and their relationship with credibility evaluation have been studied by the yale attitude change model (Chakraborty and Bhat 2017 , 2018b ), and the stimulus-organism-response model (Chakraborty 2019 ). Jha and Shah ( 2021 ) adapted attitude-behavior linkage theory to study how the exposure to past reviews acts as an influence to write credible reviews.

The consumer’s expectation about product experience and credibility assessment is studied using theories like expectancy-disconfirmation theory (Jha and Shah 2021 ), needs theory (Anastasiei et al. 2021 ), and regulatory focus theory (Isci and Kitapci, 2020 ; Lee and Koo, 2012 ). Overall, these theories have contributed to the advancement of the understanding of the holistic process involved in consumer attitude formation and behaviour in online reviews.

3.5 Risk aversion

The theories such as category diagnosticity theory, prospect theory, uncertainty management theory, and uncertainty reduction theory provide a theoretical lens to examine how consumers rely on credible information to avoid uncertain outcomes. Hong and Pittman ( 2020 ) use category diagnosticity theory and prospect theory to hypothesize negative online reviews as more credible than positive reviews. An individual who focuses on reducing loss perceives negative online reviews as more diagnostic and credible. Kusumasondjaja et al. ( 2012 ) also argue that consumers try to avoid future losses by spending effort to find credible information before making a decision. With the help of these underlying assumptions, studies have used perspectives drawn from theories to understand the loss-aversion behaviour and higher perceived diagnostic value of negative information. Prospect theory suggests consumers attempt to avoid risks or loss and expect gain. Consumers avoid choosing the experience which has more negative online reviews because of the risk and loss associated with the negativity of the reviews (Floh et al. 2013 ). The risk aversion-related theories have contributed to understanding the consumers’ quest for credible information in negative reviews.

4 Antecedents of online review credibility

Literature on review credibility reveals varied nomenclature and operationalisation of antecedents of review credibility. However, we can broadly categorize review credibility antecedents into five broad groups: source characteristics, message characteristics, consumer characteristics, social/interpersonal influence, and product type (Refer to Fig.  3 ).

figure 3

Anteeedents of review credibility

We discuss these antecedent themes along with the major constructs in each theme in the following sections. In the final section, we also summarise the theoretical perspectives in each antecedent themes.

4.1 Source characteristics

Literature reveals that several characteristics of the source influence the credibility perception and evaluation of review by consumers. Chakraborty and Bhat ( 2017 ) define a source as the person who writes online reviews. Researchers have operationalized the source characteristics primarily through reviewers’ knowledge and reliability (Chakraborty and Bhat 2017 ); reviewer characteristics such as identity disclosure, level of expertise, review experience, and total useful votes (Liu and Ji 2018 ). In several studies (Cheung et al. 2012 ; Chih et al. 2013 ; Mumuni et al. 2019 ; Newell and Goldsmith 2001 ; Reyes- Menendez et al. 2019 ; Yan et al. 2016 ), expertise and trustworthiness of the reviewer is one of the most common conceptualizations of source credibility. Cheung and Thadani ( 2012 ) define source credibility as the “message source’s perceived ability (expertise) or motivation to provide accurate and truthful (trustworthiness) information”.

Source credibility is used as a single construct in several studies (Abedin et al. 2021 ; Chih et al. 2013 ; Cheung et al. 2009 , 2012 ; Mumuni et al. 2019 ; Reyes-Menendez et al. 2019 ; Yan et al. 2016 ; Luo et al. 2014 ). Studies have also conceptualized its sub-dimensions such as source trustworthiness (Chih et al. 2020 ; Lo and Yao 2018 ; Shamhuyenhanzva et al. 2016 ; Siddiqui et al. 2021 ; Thomas et al. 2019 ; Tien et al. 2018 ); reviewer expertise (Anastasiei et al. 2021 ; Fang 2014 ; Fang and Li 2016 ; Jha and Shah 2021 ) and reviewers’ authority (Shamhuyenhanzva et al. 2016 ), as separate antecedents to review credibility. Mumuni et al. ( 2019 ) posited that reviewer expertise and reviewer trustworthiness as two distinct constructs. Chih et al. ( 2020 ) define source trustworthiness as the credibility of the information presented by the message sender. Thomas et al. ( 2019 ) operationalize reviewer expertise as a peripheral cue and found that the amount of knowledge that a reviewer has about a product or service is influential in consumer’s perception of review credibility. Information presented by professional commentators who are perceived as experts in the specific field was found to have a positive influence on credibility (Chiou et al. 2014 ).

Source cues help in assessing the credibility and usefulness of the information shared in product reviews (Liu and Ji 2018 ). Reviews written by the source whose identity is disclosed have higher credibility compared to the reviews written by unidentified sources (Kusumasondjaja et al. 2012 ). However, in case of positive reviews with disclosed identity of the sponsor the review, credibility is negatively affected (Wang et al. 2022 ). Zhang et al. ( 2020 ) found that suspicion about the identity of the message sender influences negatively on the message’s credibility. Past studies found that when the number of friends of a reviewer (Lim and Van Der Heide 2015 ) and a number of trusted members of the reviewer (Xu 2014 ) are high in the online review community, reviews of such reviewers are considered as more credible. If a reviewer involves very actively in writing the review, the number of reviews posted by the reviewer provides evidence to the reader that the reviews written by such reviewers are credible (Lim and Van Der Heide 2015 ). The consumer also believes online reviews to be credible when they perceive the reviewer as honest (Yan et al. 2021) and caring (Yan et al. 2021). The source characteristics as antecedents of review credibility are summarized in Table 4 .

Several studies also define the source with the characteristics of the platform where the review is published. Consumers’ trust on the website (Lee et al. 2011 ) and the reputation of the website (Chih et al. 2013 ) were found as antecedents of the review credibility. If a consumer perceives an online shopping mall as trustworthy, he would believe that reviews posted in shopping mall as credible (Lee et al. 2011 ). Chih et al. ( 2013 ) posit that in addition to the source credibility (reviewer expertise), consumers evaluate the quality of contents of a website based on website reputation, which in turn leads to higher trust on the website and higher perceived credibility of the review. Website reputation is defined as the extent to which consumers perceive the platform where the review is published to be believable and trustworthy (Chih et al. 2013 ; Thomas et al. 2019 ; Tran and Can 2020 ; Guzzo et al. 2022 ; Majali et al. 2022 ). Bae and Lee ( 2011 ) found that consumer-developed sites were perceived as more credible than marketer-developed sites. Similarly, Tsao and Hsieh ( 2015 ) found that review quality as perceived by consumers had a higher impact on review credibility on independent platforms than on corporate-run platforms. Ha and Lee ( 2018 ) found that for credence service (eg. Hospital), the provider-driven platform and reviews were more credible and for experience goods (eg. Restaurant), consumer-driven platforms were perceived as more credible.

4.2 Review characteristics

Several characteristics of the message or the review are found to influence the review credibility on online review platforms (presented in Table 5 ). A product with a large number of reviews provides evidence of higher sales and popularity of the product (Flanagin and Metzger 2013 ; Hong and Pittman 2020 ; Reyes- Menendez et al. 2019 ). When online review for a product or service is higher, it directly influences the review credibility (Hong and Pittman 2020 ; Reyes- Menendez et al. 2019 ; Thomas et al. 2019 ; Tran and Can 2020 ).

If the reviewer agrees with most of online reviews or recommendations of others those reviews are considered as consistent reviews (Chakraborty and Bhat 2017 , 2018b ; Chakraborty 2019 ). The consistent online reviews were found to have higher credibility (Abedin et al. 2021 ; Baharuddin and Yaacob 2020 ; Brand and Reith 2022 ; Chakraborty and Bhat 2017 , 2018b ; Chakraborty 2019 ; Cheung et al. 2009 , 2012 ; Luo et al. 2014 ; Tran and Can 2020 ). Fang and Li ( 2016 ) found out that receiver of the information actively monitors the consistency of the information while perceiving the credibility of review. The degree of agreement in aggregated review ratings on the review platform creates consensus among the reviewers (Qiu et al. 2012 ). Information evolved from such consensus is perceived as highly credible (Lo and Yao 2018 ; Qiu et al. 2012 ). However, a few studies (Cheung et al. 2012 ; Luo et al. 2015 ; Thomas et al. 2019 ) have reported contradicting findings and argue that when the involvement of consumers is low and consumers are knowledgeable, review consistency has an insignificant impact on the review credibility.

Past studies have found strong evidence on the impact of review argument quality (Anastasiei et al. 2021 ; Baharuddin and Yaacob 2020 ; Cheung et al. 2012 ; Thomas et al. 2019 ; Tran and Can 2020 ; Tsao and Hsieh 2015 ) and review quality (Bambauer-Sachse and Mangold 2010 ; Chakraborty and Bhat 2017 , 2018b ; Chakraborty 2019 ; Liu and Ji 2018 ) and argument strength (Cheung et al. 2009 ; Fang 2014 ; Fang and Li 2016 ; Luo et al. 2015 ) on review credibility. Concreteness in the argument also positively impacts the review credibility (Shukla and Mishra 2021 ).

According to Petty et al. ( 1983 ), the strength of the argument provided in the message represents the quality of the message. Cheung et al. ( 2009 ) define argument strength as the quality of the information in the online review. Chakraborty and Bhat ( 2017 ) present review quality as the logical and reliable argument in the online review. Recent studies (Thomas et al. 2019 ; Tran and Can 2020 ) considered accuracy and completeness as dimensions of argument quality.

Review attribute helps in classifying the review as an objective review or subjective review based on the information captured (Lee and Koo 2012 ). Jimenez and Mendoza (2013); Gvili and Levy ( 2016 ) operationalize the level of detail as the amount of information present in the review about a product or service. Past studies have found evidence for the positive relationship between different attributes of reviews such as review objectivity (Luo et al. 2015 ; Abedin et al. 2021 ), level of detail (Jimenez and Mendoza 2013 ), review attribute (Lee and Koo 2012 ), message readability (Guzzo et al. 2022 ), persuasiveness of eWOM messages (Tien et al. 2018 ), interestingness (Shamuyenhanzva et al. 2016 ), graphics (Fang and Li 2016 ) and suspicion of truthfulness (Zhang et al. 2020 ) with review credibility. Vendemia ( 2017 ) found that the emotional content of information in the review also influences the review credibility. While assessing the review credibility, the utilitarian function of the review (Ran et al. 2021 ) and message content (Siddiqui et al. 2021 ) play an important role.

Several studies confirm that review valence influences review credibility (Lee and Koo 2012 ; Hong and Pittman 2020 ; Lo and Yao 2018 ; Manganari and Dimara 2017 ; Pentina et al. 2018 ; Pentina et al. 2017 ; vanLohuizen and Trujillo-Barrera 2019 ; Kusumasondjaja et al. 2012 ; Lim and Van Der Heide 2015 ; Chiou et al. 2018 ). Chiou et al. ( 2018 ) explain review valence is negative or positive evaluation of the product or service in online reviews. Review valence is often operationalized in experimental research at two levels: positive reviews vs negative reviews. Several studies report that negative reviews are perceived to be more credible than positive reviews (Chiou et al. 2018 ; Kusumasondjaja et al. 2012 ; Lee and Koo 2012 ; Lo and Yao 2018 ; Manganari and Dimara 2017 ). Negative reviews present a consumer’s bad experience, service failure or low quality and they create a loss-framed argument. Tversky and Kahneman ( 1991 ) explain that loss-framed arguments have a greater impact on the behaviour of consumer than gain-framed arguments. Contradictory to these findings, a few studies found that positive reviews are more credible than negative reviews (Hong and Pittman 2020 ; Pentina et al. 2017 , 2018 ). Lim and Van Der Heide ( 2015 ) found that though negative reviews impact greatly on consumer behavior it is perceived to be less credible.

Several studies (Chakraborty 2019 ; Cheung et al. 2012 ; Luo et al. 2015 ) have observed the impact of review sidedness (positive, negative or two-sided reviews) on review credibility and found that two-sided reviews are perceived as more credible. Further, Cheung et al. ( 2012 ) found that when consumers’ expertise level was high and involvement level was low, review sidedness had a stronger impact on review credibility.

Star ratings are numerical evidence of product performance (Hong and Pittman 2020 ). Star rating represents the average rating of all the review ratings therefore it helps to assess the conclusions in general (Tran and Can 2020 ). Rating evaluation needs a low amount of cognitive effort while processing the review information (Thomas et al. 2019 ). Past studies have found star ratings (Hong and Pittman 2020 ), aggregated review scores (Camilleri 2017 ), product or service ratings (Thomas et al. 2019 ; Tran and Can 2020 ), review ratings (Luo et al. 2015 ), and recommendation or information rating (Cheung et al. 2009 ) act as peripheral cues influencing the review credibility.

4.3 Consumer characteristics

Receiver is the consumer of the review and consumer needs, traits, motivation, knowledge, and involvement have been found to influence the review credibility. Chih et al. ( 2013 ) posit that online community members have two types of needs: functional need (need to find useful product information) and social need (need to build social relationships with others). These needs motivate consumers to use online reviews and form perceptions of review credibility. Consumers refer to online reviews to understand the product's pros, cons, and costs (Hussain et al. 2018 ); reduce purchase risk, and information search time (Schiffman and Kanuk 2000 ).

Past research studies indicate consumer’s motivation to obtain more information on purchase context (Chih et al. 2013 ), self-worth reinforcement (Hussain et al. 2018 ), opinion seeking from other consumers (Hussain et al. 2018 ), and prior knowledge of the receiver on the product (Cheung and Thadani 2012 ; Wang et al. 2013 ), influences review credibility. When the online reviews are congruous to the consumer’s knowledge and experiences, the message is perceived to be credible (Chakraborty and Bhat 2017 , 2018b ; Chakraborty 2019 ; Cheung et al. 2009 ). Chiou et al. ( 2018 ) found that high-knowledge consumers find reviews less credible. Studies in the past have also used prior knowledge of consumers as a control variable (Bae and Lee 2011 ) and moderating variable (Doh and Hwang 2009 ) when studying other factors. Bambauer-Sachse and Mangold ( 2010 ) found that knowledge on manipulations on product reviews influenced consumers' product evaluations, negative reviews, in particular, and when they come from a highly credible source.

Lim and Van Der Heide ( 2015 ) observed differences in the perceived credibility of users and non-users of the review platform and found an interaction effect between users’ familiarity with the review platform and reviewer profile (number of friends and number of reviews) characteristics of review credibility. Consumer experience with online reviews affects their perception of review credibility (Guzzo et al 2022 ). Izogo et al ( 2022 ) posit that consumer experiences such as sensory, cognitive and behavioral experience also influences review credibility. Consumer motivation, beliefs, and knowledge, as antecedents in literature, are summarised in Table 6 .

Cheung et. al ( 2012 ) posited that the influence of source and message characteristics on review credibility depends on two characteristics of the consumer: involvement and expertise. The authors found that level of involvement and knowledge of consumers moderate the relationships between review characteristics (review consistency and review sidedness) source credibility, and review credibility. Consumers process the information through central route, when making high involvement decisions and carefully read the content (Lin et al. 2013 ; Park and Lee 2008 ). When consumers have low involvement decisions, they are more likely to use peripheral cues and pay lesser attention to the review content, resulting in low eWOM credibility. Xue and Zhou ( 2010 ) found that consumers with high involvement decisions trusted negative reviews. In a recent study, Zhang et al. ( 2020 ) found that personality traits such as dispositional trust can trigger suspicion about the truthfulness of the message and may in turn, impact review credibility.

4.4 Interpersonal influence in the social media

Earlier research shows that interpersonal influence (Chu and Kim 2011 ) and tie strength (Bansal and Voyer 2000 ) positively influences online reviews. Consumers perceive online reviews as more credible when social status and cognitive dissonance reduction can be achieved through online forums (Chih et al. 2013 ). The previous studies have considered these factors under the theme related to source or communicator of the message (Verma and Dewani 2020 )). However, the constructs tie strength and homophily represent an interpersonal relationship between the communicator and the reader. Therefore, we discuss them separately. Tie strength is considered to be higher in an online community when the members have close relationships with other members and frequently communicate with each other. Consumers who have similar tastes and preferences share information in brand communities and enjoy meeting other members in a meaningful way (Xiang et al. 2017 ). Reviews are found to be more credible when review writers get exposed to past reviews written by others (Jha and Shah 2021 ). The exposure to past reviews moderates the relationship between disconfirmation and perception of online review credibility (Jha and Shah 2021 ). The recommendations of the members on social networking sites have also been found to be influencing the credibility of online reviews (Siddiqui et al. 2021 ).

Consumers’ perceptions of their similarity to the source of message are believed to impact their credibility assessment (Gilly et al. 1998 ; Wangenheim and Bayon 2004). Brown and Reingen ( 1987 ) define similarity or homophily as the “degree to which individuals are similar to sources in terms of certain attributes”. Herrero and Martin ( 2015 ) found that hotel consumers would perceive reviews more credible when there is a similarity between users and content creators. Source homophily is found to have an impact on review credibility in the e-commerce context as well (Abedin et al. 2021 ). Similarity of the source is often described in terms of interests of consumers and content generators. Xu ( 2014 ) posits that when a greater number of trusted members for reviewers are present on the website, it increases trust, thereby impacting the perceived credibility of the review. (Table 7 ).

4.5 Product type

The type of the product (search or experience product) is found to impact user’s evaluation of review credibility (Bae and Lee 2011 ; Jimenez and Mendoza 2013 ) and review helpfulness (Mudambi and Schuff 2010 ). Experience products differ from search products. They require more effort in retrieving product’s attribute-related information online and often require direct experience to assess the product features accurately. Bae and Lee ( 2011 ) found that when review originates from the consumer-owned online community, consumers find review credible for experience products. Tsao and Hsieh ( 2015 ) found that the credibility of eWOM is stronger for credence products than search products. Credence goods are those whose qualities cannot be confirmed even after purchase, such as antivirus software and sellers often cheat consumers due to information asymmetry and charge higher prices for inferior goods.

Jimenez and Mendoza ( 2013 ) found differences in consumers’ evaluation of review credibility for search and experience products. The study found that for search products detailed reviews were considered more credible and for experience products, reviewer agreement impacted review credibility (Jimenez and Mendoza 2013 ). Chiou et al. ( 2014 ) found that the review credibility was perceived differently for elite (eg: Classical musical concerts) and mass (eg: movies) cultural offerings. The study posited that when consumers read reviews of elite cultural offerings, and it originates from professionals, it is perceived as more credible. (Table 8 ).

4.6 Summary of antecedent themes and theoretical perspectives

Review characteristics, followed by source characteristics, are the most researched themes in terms of the number of studies and theories used (refer to Fig.  4 ). It indicates the wide coverage of different theoretical perspectives examined in these two areas. Consumer characteristics, interpersonal determinants in social media, and product type were less researched antecedent themes and lesser examined through a theoretical lens.

figure 4

Anteeedent themewise articles and theories

The most popular theories in review credibility literature are the elaboration likelihood model, social influence theory, accessibility- diagnosticity theory, attribution theory, and theory of reasoned action. Contribution from these theories was noted in at least four antecedent themes identified in our study. Table 9 summarizes the theories used in each antecedent theme identified in the current review.

5 Review credibility: future research directions

Though there is ample research on online review credibility, there are several gaps in understanding the aspects of consumer behavior in online review evaluation and mitigation of issues with credibility. We identify six research issues that need further investigation and empirical evidence.

5.1 Research issue 1: review credibility in a high-involvement decision-making context

Several studies have examined credibility of reviews in experience products such as movies (Chiou et al. 2014 ; Flanagin and Metzer 2013 ), restaurants (Ha and Lee 2018 ; Pentina et al. 2017 ; vanLohuizen and Trujillo-Barrera 2019 ), hotels (Lo and Yao 2018 ; Manganari and Dimara 2017 ), and search goods such as audiobooks (Camilleri 2017 ), consumer electronics (Bambauer-Sachse and Mangold 2010 ; Chiou et al. 2018 ; Lee et al. 2011 ; Lee and Koo 2012 ; Tsao and Hsieh 2015 ; Xu 2014 ), few studies (Jimenez and Mendoza 2013 ; Doh and Hwang 2009 ; Xue and Zhou 2010 ; Bae and Lee 2011 ) have examined both experience and search products.

However, most of the products involve low to medium involvement of consumers and there is a gap in understanding online review usage, credibility, and impact in the context of high involvement decisions. There are several online review platforms on high involvement goods and services such as cars (eg: carwale, auto-drive), and destination holiday planning (TripAdvisor). Consumers often use online reviews to reduce purchase risk. As purchase risks are higher in high involvement decisions, consumers would spend more time searching online to evaluate the product. It is also necessary to understand to what extent consumers trust online reviews in a high involvement decision context, which often combines online information, reviews, and offline experiences (eg: visit to a car dealership for a test drive). Previous studies on consumer involvement (Hussain et al. 2018 ; Lin et al. 2013 ; Park and Lee 2008 ; Reyes-Menendez et al. 2019 ; Xue and Zhou, 2010 ) have operationalized involvement as a multi-item construct that captures the level of involvement of consumers, using consumers’ response. Experimental design studies, using high involvement goods and their reviews would help to establish causal relationships, in high involvement goods context. As an exception, one of the recent studies by Isci and Kitapci ( 2020 ) uses experimental design using automobile products as the stimuli for the experiment. However, as observed in our analysis, there are scarce studies in high involvement decision making context.

5.2 Research issue 2: mitigation of low credibility of the online review

While extant literature is available on factors affecting review credibility and its impact on brand and consumer behavior, there is limited literature and discussion on how companies can mitigate the impact of low credibility of reviews and improve trust. More evidence and empirical research is required to demonstrate effectiveness of measures that firms can take to build credibility and improve trust. As reviews are an important component of product information in e-commerce websites and reviews are used to form pre-purchase decisions, research on mitigation of poor credibility would be useful. For example, while past research shows that reviews on marketer-developed sites are perceived less credible for experience products than consumer-developed sites (Bae and Lee 2011 ). There is a need to study strategies that marketers can use to gain the trust of consumers.

5.3 Research issue 3: mitigating impact of negative online reviews

Past studies have indicated that consumers pay more attention to negative reviews (Kusumasondjaja et al. 2012 ; Lee and Koo 2012 ; vanLohuizen and Barrera 2019 ; Yang and Mai 2010 ), and trust (Xue and Zhou 2010 ; Banerjee and Chua 2019 ) more than positive reviews. Negative reviews are found to be persuasive and have a higher impact on brand interest and purchase intention (Xue and Zhou 2010 ). There are also limited studies discussing the ways to mitigate the impact of negative reviews and strategies to deal with them in a wide variety of contexts. While extant literature is available on review characteristics such as review sidedness, review valence, and its impact on review credibility (Refer to Table 5 ), there is little empirical evidence on strategies to deal with negative reviews. An exception is a study by Pee ( 2016 ), that addressed this issue by focusing on marketing mix and suggested that managing the marketing mix can mitigate the impact of negative reviews. However, more research is needed to equip marketers with mitigation techniques and fair strategies to deal with negative reviews.

5.4 Research issue 4: credibility of brand initiated online reviews

Brand-initiated eWOM often incentivizes consumers to share the content with their friends and it is unclear whether such initiatives are perceived as less credible. Brands use a variety of strategies to promote products on social media and facilitate person-to-person communications of brand content such as referral rewards, coupons, and bonus points (Abu-El-Rub et al. 2017 ). Incentivized reviews can easily manipulate consumers as their motive is not to provide unbiased information to make an informed decision (Mayzlin et al. 2014 ).

These practices followed by the service providers, or the vendors could jeopardize the trust consumers have towards them. More research in this area would provide insights into the best social media marketing practices that are considered credible. Future research must focus on guiding marketers on ethical and credible practices in social media marketing and managing online reviews.

5.5 Research issue 5: presence of fake online reviews

Unlike incentivized reviews, deceptive opinion spams are written to sound real and to deceive the review readers (Ott, Cardie and Hancock 2013 ; Hernández Fusilier et al. 2015 ). Spammers use extreme language when it comes to praising or criticizing (Gao et al. 2021 ). These spammers are active on several social media and review platforms. As technology is continuously evolving deceptive opinion spam has found a way through the use of artificial intelligence. The social media platforms like Twitter and Facebook have experienced the rise of bot or automated accounts. This trend is even entering into online review systems and is a threat to the online review system Tousignant ( 2017 ). A study conducted by Yao et al. ( 2017 ) argues that the reviews generated by bots are not only undetectable but also scored as useful reviews. This is a serious issue as the whole purpose of online review platforms is to provide information that would lead an individual to make an informed decision, but these fake reviews severely damage the credibility of review site (Munzel 2016 ). In recent years, researchers started contributing to this area and have proposed models to detect fake reviews in different platforms such as app stores (Martens and Maalej 2019 ), online review platforms (Singh and Kumar 2017 ), and filtering fake reviews on TripAdvisor (Cardoso et al. 2018 ). However, presence of fake reviews can make the review users skeptical towards using the reviews. Future research must focus on the role of artificial intelligence in online review systems and its impact on consumers’ assessment of online review credibility. Research into tools to detect and curb the spread of fake reviews is needed to improve credibility of reviews.

5.6 Research issue 6: new forms of online reviews

Rapid technological developments have resulted in new digital formats of online reviews such as video and images. Past experimental design studies have primarily used stimuli in the form of textual reviews. As consumers use more and more multimedia data and engage in platforms such as Youtube.com or Instagram.com, research is required to examine the online review credibility and practices using new forms of reviews.

6 Theoretical contribution and managerial implications and conclusions

This paper makes three important theoretical contributions. First, it provides a consolidated account of antecedents, mediators and moderators of the construct online review credibility identifies five broad groups of antecedents. Second, this paper also makes a maiden attempt to map the antecedent themes to the theoretical frameworks in the literature. This mapping provides a holistic understanding of theories that examine various facets of online review credibility. In the process, we also identify theoretical lenses that are less investigated. Third we identify research gaps and issues that needs further investigation in the area of online review credibility. Some of the areas of future research include mitigation strategies for negative reviews and credibility of reviews in purchase of high-involvement product or service. Emergence of new forms of multimedia reviews, fake reviews and sponsored reviews have also triggered the need to push research beyond simple text reviews. Future research could use theoretical lens that have been less explored to investigate research issues in review credibility. There is a need to advance online review credibility research beyond the popular theoretical frameworks such as elaboration likelihood model, social influence theory, accessibility- diagnosticity theory, attribution theory, and theory of reasoned action.

The paper has several managerial implications. The lower credibility of reviews poses threat to its relevance in digital marketing and electronic commerce. Therefore, managers of electronic commerce must strive to adopt practices to preserve the trust and integrity of online reviews. Our review indicated five groups of antecedents of online review credibility: source characteristics, review characteristics, consumer characteristics, interpersonal characteristics in social media, and product type. Managers cannot control completely all the factors on the social media. However, by appropriately designing the e-commerce platform with the elements that influence credibility, managers will be able to improve their marketing communications. Awareness of review characteristics that impact review credibility would help managers to choose more appropriate measures to deal with negative and positive reviews. Managers must adopt a social media marketing strategy that is suitable to the context of the review and type of product.

Data availability

The dataset was generated by two licensed databases and thus cannot be made accessible.

Abedin E, Mendoza A, Karunasekera S (2021) Exploring the moderating role of readers’ perspective in evaluations of online consumer reviews. J Theor Appl Electron Commer Res 16:3406–3424. https://doi.org/10.3390/jtaer16070184

Article   Google Scholar  

Abu-El-Rub N, Minnich A, Mueen A (2017) Anomalous reviews owing to referral incentive. Proc 2017 IEEE/ACM int conf adv soc networks anal mining. ASONAM 2017:313–316. https://doi.org/10.1145/3110025.3110100

Anastasiei B, Dospinescu N, Dospinescu O (2021) Understanding the adoption of incentivized word-of-mouth in the online environment. J Theor Appl Electron Commer Res 16:992–1007. https://doi.org/10.3390/jtaer16040056

Bae S, Lee T (2011) Product type and consumers’ perception of online consumer reviews. Electron Mark 21:255–266. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12525-011-0072-0

Baharuddin NA, Yaacob M (2020) Dimensions of EWOM credibility on the online purchasing activities among consumers through social media. J Komun Malaysian J Commun 36:335–352

Bambauer-Sachse S, Mangold S (2010) The role of perceived review credibility in the context of brand equity dilution through negative product reviews on the internet. Adv Consum Res 18:38–45. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2010.09.003

Banerjee S, Chua AYK (2019) Trust in online hotel reviews across review polarity and hotel category. Comput Human Behav 90:265–275. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2018.09.010

Bansal HS, Voyer PA (2000) Word-of-mouth processes within a services purchase decision context. J Serv Res 3:166–177. https://doi.org/10.1177/109467050032005

Brand BM, Reith R (2022) Cultural differences in the perception of credible online reviews – the influence of presentation format. Decis Support Syst 154:113710. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dss.2021.113710

Brand BM, Kopplin CS, Rausch TM (2022) Cultural differences in processing online customer reviews: holistic versus analytic thinkers. Electron Mark. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12525-022-00543-1

Brown JJ, Reingen PH (1987) Referral ties beav and word-of or *. J Consum Res 14:350–362. https://doi.org/10.1086/209118

Bughin J, Doogan J, Vetvik OJ (2010) A new way to measure word-of-mouth marketing. McKinsey Quarterly 2:113–6. https://www.mckinsey.com/business-functions/marketing-and-sales/our-insights/a-new-way-to-measure-word-of-mouth-marketing . Accessed 13 March 2022

Camilleri AR (2017) The presentation format of review score information influences consumer preferences through the attribution of outlier reviews. J Interact Mark 39:1–14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intmar.2017.02.002

Cardoso EF, Silva RM, Almeida TA (2018) Towards automatic filtering of fake reviews. Neurocomputing 309:106–116. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neucom.2018.04.074

Chakraborty U (2019) Perceived credibility of online hotel reviews and its impact on hotel booking intentions. Int J Contemp Hosp Manag 31:3465–3483. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJCHM-11-2018-0928

Chakraborty U, Bhat S (2017) The effects of credible online reviews on brand equity dimensions and its consequence on consumer behavior. J Promot Manag 24:57–82. https://doi.org/10.1080/10496491.2017.1346541

Chakraborty U, Bhat S (2018a) Credibility of online reviews and its impact on brand image. Manag Res Rev 41:148–164. https://doi.org/10.1108/MRR-06-2017-0173

Chakraborty U, Bhat S (2018b) Online reviews and its impact on brand equity. Int J Internet Mark Advert 12:159. https://doi.org/10.1504/ijima.2018.10011683

Chang HH, Wu LH (2014) An examination of negative e-WOM adoption: brand commitment as a moderator. Decis Support Syst 59:206–218. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dss.2013.11.008

Chen Y, Xie J (2008) Online consumer review: word-of-mouth as a new element of marketing communication mix. Manage Sci 54:477–491. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.1070.0810

Cheung CMK, Thadani DR (2012) The impact of electronic word-of-mouth communication: a literature analysis and integrative model. Decis Support Syst 54:461–470. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dss.2012.06.008

Cheung M, Luo C, Sia C, Chen H (2009) Credibility of electronic word-of-mouth: informational and normative determinants of on-line consumer recommendations. Int J Electron Commer 13:9–38. https://doi.org/10.2753/JEC1086-4415130402

Cheung CMY, Sia CL, Kuan KKY (2012) Is this review believable? A study of factors affecting the credibility of online consumer reviews from an ELM perspective. J Assoc Inf Syst 13:618–635. https://doi.org/10.17705/1jais.00305

Chih WH, Wang KY, Hsu LC, Huang SC (2013) Investigating electronic word-of-mouth effects on online discussion forums: The role of perceived positive electronic word-of-mouth review credibility. Cyberpsychology, Behav Soc Netw 16:658–668. https://doi.org/10.1089/cyber.2012.0364

Chih WH, Hsu LC, Ortiz J (2020) The antecedents and consequences of the perceived positive eWOM review credibility. Ind Manag Data Syst 120:1217–1243. https://doi.org/10.1108/IMDS-10-2019-0573

Chiou JS, Hsiao CC, Su FY (2014) Whose online reviews have the most influences on consumers in cultural offerings? Professional vs consumer commentators. Internet Res 24:353–368. https://doi.org/10.1108/IntR-03-2013-0046

Chiou JS, Hsiao CC, Chiu TY (2018) The credibility and attribution of online reviews: differences between high and low product knowledge consumers. Online Inf Rev 42:630–646. https://doi.org/10.1108/OIR-06-2017-0197

Chu SC, Kim Y (2011) Determinants of consumer engagement in electronic word-of-mouth (eWOM) in social networking sites. Int J Advert 30:47–75. https://doi.org/10.2501/IJA-30-1-047-075

Collinger T, Malthouse E, Maslowska E, et al (2017) How online reviews influence sales. Evidence of the power of online reviews to shape customer behavior. In: Spiegel Res. Cent. https://spiegel.medill.northwestern.edu/how-online-reviews-influence-sales/%0A . Accessed 2 Nov 2021

Daowd A, Hasan R, Eldabi T et al (2020) Factors affecting eWOM credibility, information adoption and purchase intention on generation Y: a case from Thailand. J Enterp Inf Manag 34:838–859. https://doi.org/10.1108/JEIM-04-2019-0118

Doh SJ, Hwang JS (2009) How consumers evaluate eWOM (electronic word-of-mouth) messages. Cyberpsychol Behav 12:193–197. https://doi.org/10.1089/cpb.2008.0109

Dong Z (2015) How to persuade adolescents to use nutrition labels: effects of health consciousness, argument quality, and source credibility. Asian J Commun 25:84–101. https://doi.org/10.1080/01292986.2014.989241

Erkan I, Evans C (2016) The influence of eWOM in social media on consumers’ purchase intentions: an extended approach to information adoption. Comput Human Behav 61:47–55. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.03.003

Eslami SP, Ghasemaghaei M, Hassanein K (2018) Which online reviews do consumers find most helpful? A multi-method investigation. Decis Support Syst 113:32–42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dss.2018.06.012

Fang Y (2014) Beyond the credibility of electronic word of mouth : exploring eWOM adoption on social networking sites from affective and curiosity perspectives. Int J Electron Comm 18(3):67–102

Fang Y, Li C (2016) Electronic word-of-mouth on social networking sites : cue validity and cue utilization perspectives. Human Syst Manage 35:35–50. https://doi.org/10.3233/HSM-150853

Fisch C, Block J (2018) Six tips for your (systematic) literature review in business and management research. Manag Rev Q 68:103–106. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11301-018-0142-x

Flanagin AJ, Metzger MJ (2007) The role of site features, user attributes, and information verification behaviors on the perceived credibility of web-based information. New Media Soc 9:319–342. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444807075015

Flanagin AJ, Metzger MJ (2013) Trusting expert versus user-generated ratings online: the role of information volume, valence, and consumer characteristics. Comput Human Behav 29:1626–1634. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2013.02.001

Floh A, Koller M, Zauner A (2013) Taking a deeper look at online reviews: the asymmetric effect of valence intensity on shopping behavior. J Mark Manag 29:646–670. https://doi.org/10.1080/0267257X.2013.776620

Fogg BJ, Marshall J, Laraki O, et al (2001) What makes web sites credible? A report on a large quantitative study. In proceedings of Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. Accessed 10 Jan 2021

Gao B, Hu N, Bose I (2017) Follow the herd or be myself? An analysis of consistency in behavior of reviewers and helpfulness of their reviews. Decis Support Syst 95:1–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dss.2016.11.005

Gao Y, Gong M, Xie Y, Qin AK (2021) An attention-based unsupervised adversarial model for movie review spam detection. IEEE Trans Multimed 23:784–796. https://doi.org/10.1109/TMM.2020.2990085

Gilly MC, Graham JL, Wolfinbarger MF, Yale LJ (1998) A dyadic study of interpersonal information search. J Acad Mark Sci 26:83–100. https://doi.org/10.1177/0092070398262001

Gutt D, Neumann J, Zimmermann S et al (2019) Design of review systems – a strategic instrument to shape online reviewing behavior and economic outcomes. J Strateg Inf Syst 28:104–117

Guzzo T, Ferri F, Grifoni P (2022) What factors make online travel reviews credible? The consumers’ credibility perception-CONCEPT model. Societies. https://doi.org/10.3390/soc12020050

Gvili Y, Levy S (2016) Antecedents of attitudes toward eWOM communication: differences across channels. Internet Res 26:1030–1051. https://doi.org/10.1108/IntR-08-2014-0201

Ha EY, Lee H (2018) Projecting service quality: the effects of social media reviews on service perception. Int J Hosp Manag 69:132–141. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2017.09.006

Hernández Fusilier D, Montes-y-Gómez M, Rosso P, Guzmán Cabrera R (2015) Detecting positive and negative deceptive opinions using PU-learning. Inf Process Manag 51:433–443. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ipm.2014.11.001

Herrero Á, Martín HS (2015) How online search behavior is influenced by user-generated content on review websites and hotel interactive websites. 27:1573–1597 https://doi.org/10.1108/IJCHM-05-2014-0255 .

Hong S, Pittman M (2020) eWOM anatomy of online product reviews : interaction effects of review number, valence, and star ratings on perceived credibility. Int J Advert. https://doi.org/10.1080/02650487.2019.1703386

Hsu LC, Chih WH, Liou DK (2016) Investigating community members’ eWOM effects in Facebook fan page. Ind Manag Data Syst 116:978–1004. https://doi.org/10.1108/IMDS-07-2015-0313

Hussain S, Guangju W, Jafar RMS et al (2018) Consumers’ online information adoption behavior: motives and antecedents of electronic word of mouth communications. Comput Human Behav 80:22–32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2017.09.019

Işçi Ü, Kitapçi H (2020) Responses of Turkish consumers to product risk information in the context of negative EWOM. J Bus Econ Manag 21:1593–1609. https://doi.org/10.3846/jbem.2020.13383

Ismagilova E, Rana NP, Slade EL, Dwivedi YK (2020a) A meta-analysis of the factors affecting eWOM providing behaviour. Eur J Mark 55:1067–1102. https://doi.org/10.1108/EJM-07-2018-0472

Ismagilova E, Slade EL, Rana NP, Dwivedi YK (2020b) The effect of electronic word of mouth communications on intention to buy: a meta-analysis. Inf Syst Front 22:1203–1226. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10796-019-09924-y

Ismagilova E, Slade E, Rana NP, Dwivedi YK (2020c) The effect of characteristics of source credibility on consumer behaviour: a meta-analysis. J Retail Consum Serv 53:1–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2019.01.005

Izogo EE, Jayawardhena C, Karjaluoto H (2022) Negative eWOM and perceived credibility: a potent mix in consumer relationships. Int J Retail Distrib Manag. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJRDM-01-2022-0039

Jha AK, Shah S (2021) Disconfirmation effect on online review credibility: an experimental analysis. Decis Support Syst 145:113519. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dss.2021.113519

Jiménez FR, Mendoza NA (2013) Too popular to ignore : the influence of online reviews on purchase intentions of search and experience products. J Interact Mark 27:226–235. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intmar.2013.04.004

Johnson TJ, Kaye BK (2016) Some like it lots: the influence of interactivity and reliance on credibility. Comput Human Behav 61:136–145. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.03.012

Klaus T, Changchit C (2019) Toward an understanding of consumer attitudes on online review usage. J Comput Inf Syst 59:277–286. https://doi.org/10.1080/08874417.2017.1348916

Kozinets RV (2016) Amazonian forests and trees: Multiplicity and objectivity in studies of online consumer-generated ratings and reviews, a commentary on de Langhe, Fernbach, and Lichtenstein. J Consum Res 42:834–839. https://doi.org/10.1093/jcr/ucv090

Kuckertz A, Brändle L (2022) Creative reconstruction: a structured literature review of the early empirical research on the COVID-19 crisis and entrepreneurship. Manag Rev Q 72:281–307. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11301-021-00221-0

Kusumasondjaja S, Shanka T, Marchegiani C (2012) Credibility of online reviews and initial trust: the roles of reviewer’s identity and review valence. J Vacat Mark 18:185–195. https://doi.org/10.1177/1356766712449365

Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J, et al (2009) The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: explanation and elaboration. J Clin Epidemiol 62:e1–e34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2009.06.006

Lee KT, Koo DM (2012) Effects of attribute and valence of e-WOM on message adoption: moderating roles of subjective knowledge and regulatory focus. Comput Human Behav 28:1974–1984. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2012.05.018

Lee J, Park DH, Han I (2011) The different effects of online consumer reviews on consumers’ purchase intentions depending on trust in online shopping malls: an advertising perspective. Internet Res 21:187–206. https://doi.org/10.1108/10662241111123766

Lim Y, Van Der Heide B (2015) Evaluating the wisdom of strangers: the perceived credibility of online consumer reviews on yelp. J Comput Commun 20:67–82. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcc4.12093

Lin C, Wu Y-S, Chen J-CV (2013) Electronic word-of-mouth: the moderating roles of product involvement and brand image. In proceedings of 2013 international conference on technology innovation and industrial management. Accessed 14 Jan 2021

Linnenluecke MK, Marrone M, Singh AK (2020) Conducting systematic literature reviews and bibliometric analyses. Aust J Manag 45:175–194. https://doi.org/10.1177/0312896219877678

Liu W, Ji R (2018) Examining the role of online reviews in Chinese online group buying context: the moderating effect of promotional marketing. Soc Sci 7:141–157. https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci7080141

Lo AS, Yao SS (2018) What makes hotel online reviews credible?: An investigation of the roles of reviewer expertise, review rating consistency and review valence. Int J Contemp Hosp Manag 31:41–60. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJCHM-10-2017-0671

Luo C, Wu J, Shi Y, Xu Y (2014) The effects of individualism-collectivism cultural orientation on eWOM information. Int J Inf Manage 34:446–456. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2014.04.001

Luo C, Luo X, Xu Y et al (2015) Examining the moderating role of sense of membership in online review evaluations. Inf Manag 52:305–316. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.im.2014.12.008

Majali T, Alsoud M, Yaseen H et al (2022) The effect of digital review credibility on Jordanian online purchase intention. Int J Data Netw Sci 6:973–982. https://doi.org/10.5267/j.ijdns.2022.1.014

Manganari EE, Dimara E (2017) Enhancing the impact of online hotel reviews through the use of emoticons. Behav Inf Technol 36:674–686. https://doi.org/10.1080/0144929X.2016.1275807

Mariani MM, Borghi M, Kazakov S (2019) The role of language in the online evaluation of hospitality service encounters: an empirical study. Int J Hosp Manag 78:50–58. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2018.11.012

Martens D, Maalej W (2019) Towards understanding and detecting fake reviews in app stores. Empir Softw Eng 24:3316–3355. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10664-019-09706-9

Mayzlin D, Dover Y, Chevalier J (2014) Promotional reviews: an empirical investigation of online review manipulation. Am Econom Rev 104(8):2421–2455

Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG (2009) Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. BMJ 339:332–336. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.b2535

Moran G, Muzellec L (2017) eWOM credibility on social networking sites: a framework. J Mark Commun 23:149–161. https://doi.org/10.1080/13527266.2014.969756

Mudambi SM, Schuff D, Schuff D (2010) What makes a helpful online review? A study of customer reviews on amazon. com. MIS Q 34:185–200

Mumuni AG, O’Reilly K, MacMillan A et al (2019) Online product review impact: the relative effects of review credibility and review relevance. J Int Commer 19:153–191. https://doi.org/10.1080/15332861.2019.1700740

Munzel A (2016) Journal of retailing and consumer services assisting consumers in detecting fake reviews : the role of identity information disclosure and consensus. J Retail Consum Serv 32:96–108. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2016.06.002

Nadkarni S, Prügl R (2021) Digital transformation: a review, synthesis and opportunities for future research. Manag Rev Q 71:233–341. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11301-020-00185-7

Neumann T (2021) The impact of entrepreneurship on economic, social and environmental welfare and its determinants: a systematic review. Manag Rev Q 71:553–584. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11301-020-00193-7

Newell SJ, Goldsmith RE (2001) The development of a scale to measure perceived corporate credibility. J Bus Res 52:235–247. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0148-2963(99)00104-6

Niu W, Huang L, Li X et al (2022) Beyond the review information: an investigation of individual- and group-based presentation forms of review information. Inf Technol Manag. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10799-022-00361-z

Okoli C (2015) A guide to conducting a standalone systematic literature review. Commun Assoc Inf Syst 37:879–910. https://doi.org/10.17705/1cais.03743

Ott M, Cardie C, Hancock JT (2013) Negative deceptive opinion spam. NAACL HLT 2013.In: proceedings of the 2013 conference of the North American chapter of the association for computational linguistics: human language technologies 497–501

Park DH, Lee J (2008) eWOM overload and its effect on consumer behavioral intention depending on consumer involvement. Electron Commer Res Appl 7:386–398. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.elerap.2007.11.004

Pee LG (2016) Negative online consumer reviews: can the impact be mitigated? Int J Mark Res 58:545–568. https://doi.org/10.2501/IJMR-2016-035

Pentina I, Basmanova O, Sun Q (2017) Message and source characteristics as drivers of mobile digital review persuasiveness: does cultural context play a role? Int J Internet Mark Advert 11:1–21

Google Scholar  

Pentina I, Bailey AA, Zhang L (2018) Exploring effects of source similarity, message valence, and receiver regulatory focus on yelp review persuasiveness and purchase intentions. J Mark Commun 24:125–145. https://doi.org/10.1080/13527266.2015.1005115

Petty RE, Cacioppo JT, Schumann D (1983) Central and peripheral routes to advertising effectiveness: the moderating role of involvement. J Consum Res 10:135. https://doi.org/10.1086/208954

Qahri-Saremi H, Montazemi AR (2019) Factors affecting the adoption of an electronic word of mouth message: a meta-analysis. J Manag Inf Syst 36:969–1001. https://doi.org/10.1080/07421222.2019.1628936

Qiu L, Pang J, Lim KH (2012) Effects of conflicting aggregated rating on eWOM review credibility and diagnosticity: the moderating role of review valence. Decis Support Syst 54:631–643. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dss.2012.08.020

Ran L, Zhenpeng L, Bilgihan A, Okumus F (2021) Marketing China to U.S travelers through electronic word-of-mouth and destination image: taking Beijing as an example. J Vacat Mark. https://doi.org/10.1177/1356766720987869

Reyes-Menendez A, Saura JR, Martinez-Navalon JG (2019) The Impact of e-WOM on hotels management reputation: exploring tripadvisor review credibility with the ELM model. IEEE Access 7:68868–68877. https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2019.2919030

Schiffman LG, Kanuk LL (2000) Consumer behavior, 7th edn. Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ

Seghers M, De Clerck B, Lybaert C (2021) When form deviates from the norm: attitudes towards old and new vernacular features and their impact on the perceived credibility and usefulness of Facebook consumer reviews. Lang Sci 87:101413. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.langsci.2021.101413

Senecal S, Nantel J (2004) The influence of online product recommendations on consumers’ online choices. J Retail 80:159–169. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretai.2004.04.001

Shamhuyenhanzva RM, van Tonder E, Roberts-Lombard M, Hemsworth D (2016) Factors influencing generation Y consumers’ perceptions of eWOM credibility: a study of the fast-food industry. Int Rev Retail Distrib Consum Res 26:435–455. https://doi.org/10.1080/09593969.2016.1170065

Shin E, Chung T, Damhorst ML (2020) Are negative and positive reviews regarding apparel fit influential? J Fash Mark Manag 25:63–79. https://doi.org/10.1108/JFMM-02-2020-0027

Shukla A, Mishra A (2021) Effects of visual information and argument concreteness on purchase intention of consumers towards online hotel booking. Vision. https://doi.org/10.1177/09722629211038069

Shukla A, Mishra A (2022) Role of review length, review valence and review credibility on consumer’s online hotel booking intention. FIIB Bus Rev. https://doi.org/10.1177/23197145221099683

Siddiqui MS, Siddiqui UA, Khan MA et al (2021) Creating electronic word of mouth credibility through social networking sites and determining its impact on brand image and online purchase intentions in India. J Theor Appl Electron Commer Res 16:1008–1024. https://doi.org/10.3390/jtaer16040057

Singh M, Kumar L S (2017) Model for detecting fake or spam reviews. In: advances in intelligent systems and computing pp 213–217. Accessed 05 Jan 2022

Smith KT (2011) Digital marketing strategies that Millennials find appealing, motivating, or just annoying. J Strateg Mark 19:489–499. https://doi.org/10.1080/0965254X.2011.581383

Snyder H (2019) Literature review as a research methodology: an overview and guidelines. J Bus Res 104:333–339. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.07.039

Thomas MJ, Wirtz BW, Weyerer JC (2019) Determinants of online review credibility and its impact on consumers’ purchase intention. J Electron Commer Res 20:1–20

Tien DH, Amaya Rivas AA, Liao YK (2018) Examining the influence of customer-to-customer electronic word-of-mouth on purchase intention in social networking sites. Asia Pacific Manag Rev 24:238–249. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apmrv.2018.06.003

Tousignant L (2017) Robots learned how to write fake Yelp reviews like a human. New York Post. https://nypost.com/2017/08/31/robots-learned-how-to-write-fake-yelp-reviews-like-a-human/ . Accessed 10 Jan 2021

Tran VD, Can TK (2020) Factors affecting the credibility of online reviews on tiki: An assessment study in vietnam. Int J Data Netw Sci 4:115–126. https://doi.org/10.5267/j.ijdns.2020.2.005

Tsao WC, Hsieh MT (2015) eWOM persuasiveness: do eWOM platforms and product type matter? Electron Commer Res 15:509–541. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10660-015-9198-z

Tseng S, Fogg BJ (1999) Credibility and computing technology. Commun ACM 42:39

Tversky A, Kahneman D (1991) Loss Aversion in Riskless Choice. Q J Econ 106:1039–1061

v. Wangenheim F, Bayón T, (2004) The effect of word of mouth on services switching. Eur J Mark 38:1173–1185. https://doi.org/10.1108/03090560410548924

Van Lohuizen AW, Trujillo-Barrera A (2019) The influence of online reviews on restaurants: the roles of review valence, platform, and credibility. J Agric Food Ind Organ. https://doi.org/10.1515/jafio-2018-0020

Vendemia MA (2017) (Re)viewing reviews: effects of emotionality and valence on credibility perceptions in online consumer reviews. Commun Res Reports 34:230–238. https://doi.org/10.1080/08824096.2017.1286470

Verma D, Dewani PP (2020) eWOM credibility: a comprehensive framework and literature review. Online Inf Rev 45:481–500. https://doi.org/10.1108/OIR-06-2020-0263

Walter AT (2021) Organizational agility: ill-defined and somewhat confusing? A systematic literature review and conceptualization. Manag Rev Q 71:343–391. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11301-020-00186-6

Wang Y, Chan SCF, Ngai G, Leong HV (2013) Quantifying reviewer credibility in online tourism. Lect Notes Comput Sci 8055:381–395. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-40285-2_33

Wang X, Xu F, Luo X, (Robert), Peng L, (2022) Effect of sponsorship disclosure on online consumer responses to positive reviews: the moderating role of emotional intensity and tie strength. Decis Support Syst 156:113741. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dss.2022.113741

Weisfeld-Spolter S, Sussan F, Gould S (2014) An integrative approach to eWOM and marketing communications. Corp Commun 19:260–274. https://doi.org/10.1108/CCIJ-03-2013-0015

Wu K, Noorian Z, Vassileva J, Adaji I (2015) How buyers perceive the credibility of advisors in online marketplace: review balance, review count and misattribution. J Trust Manag. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40493-015-0013-5

Xia M, Huang Y, Duan W, Whinston AB (2009) Ballot box communication in online communities. Commun ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/1562164.1562199

Xiang Z, Du Q, Ma Y, Fan W (2017) A comparative analysis of major online review platforms: implications for social media analytics in hospitality and tourism. Tour Manag 58:51–65. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2016.10.001

Xu Q (2014) Should i trust him? the effects of reviewer profile characteristics on eWOM credibility. Comput Human Behav 33:136–144. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2014.01.027

Xue F, Zhou P (2010) The effects of product involvement and prior experience on chinese consumers’ responses to online word of mouth. J Int Consum Mark 23:45–58. https://doi.org/10.1080/08961530.2011.524576

Yan L, Hua C (2021) Which reviewers are honest and caring? The effect of constructive and prosocial information on the perceived credibility of online reviews. Int J Hosp Manag 99:102990. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2021.102990

Yan Q, Wu S, Wang L et al (2016) E-WOM from e-commerce websites and social media: which will consumers adopt? Electron Commer Res Appl 17:62–73. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.elerap.2016.03.004

Yang J, Mai ES (2010) Experiential goods with network externalities effects: an empirical study of online rating system. J Bus Res 63:1050–1057. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2009.04.029

Yao Y, Viswanath B, Cryan J et al (2017) Automated crowdturfing attacks and defenses in online review systems. Proc ACM Conf Comput Commun Secur. https://doi.org/10.1145/3133956.3133990

You Y, Vadakkepatt GG, Joshi AM (2015) A meta-analysis of electronic word-of-mouth elasticity. J Mark 79:19–39. https://doi.org/10.1509/jm.14.0169

Zha X, Li J, Yan Y (2015) Advertising value and credibility transfer: attitude towards web advertising and online information acquisition. Behav Inf Technol 34:520–532. https://doi.org/10.1080/0144929X.2014.978380

Zhang X, Wu Y, Wang W (2020) eWOM, what are we suspecting? Motivation, truthfulness or identity. J Inform, Commun Ethics Soc. https://doi.org/10.1108/JICES-12-2019-0135

Zheng L (2021) The classification of online consumer reviews: a systematic literature review and integrative framework. J Bus Res 135:226–251. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2021.06.038

Download references

Open access funding provided by Manipal Academy of Higher Education, Manipal. The authors declare that no funds, grants, or other support were received during the preparation of this manuscript.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Manipal Institute of Management, Manipal Academy of Higher Education, Manipal, Karnataka, India

T A Pai Management Institute, Manipal Academy of Higher Education, Manipal, Karnataka, India

Pallavi Upadhyaya

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

PK: Writing—Original Draft, Methodology, Formal analysis, Investigation. PU: Conceptualization; Validation, Data Curation, Writing—Review & Editing, Visualization, Supervision.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Pallavi Upadhyaya .

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest.

The authors have no relevant financial or non-financial interests to disclose.

Additional information

Publisher's note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ .

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Pooja, K., Upadhyaya, P. What makes an online review credible? A systematic review of the literature and future research directions. Manag Rev Q (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11301-022-00312-6

Download citation

Received : 01 March 2022

Accepted : 21 November 2022

Published : 05 December 2022

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s11301-022-00312-6

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

  • Review credibility
  • Systematic literature review
  • Online review
  • eWOM credibility

JEL Classification

  • Find a journal
  • Publish with us
  • Track your research

The EAIE uses cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. By continuing to browse our site or by clicking OK, we assume you consent to our use of cookies. Learn more

  • Forgot username
  • Forgot password
  • Create account

8 ways to determine the credibility of research reports

8 ways to determine the credibility of research reports

In our work, we are increasingly asked to make data-driven or fact-based decisions. A myriad of organisations offer analysis, data, intelligence and research on developments in international higher education. It can be difficult to know which source to rely on. Therefore, the first page to turn to in any research report is the methodology section. The reason is to determine if the other pages are worth reading and how critical we should be to the information printed on them. This blog post covers eight elements to look for in a research report to determine its trustworthiness. 

Why was the study undertaken?

Whether the aim of the research was to generate income, lobby for a policy change, evaluate the impact of a programme or develop a new theoretical framework, this will influence the research questions, data collection and analysis, and the presentation of the results. In order to make best use of the findings and place them in context for your use, it is advisable to bear the aim of the study in mind.

Who conducted the study?

A myriad of organisations in the field offer intelligence that feed into the decisions in our daily work. It is therefore important to look at who has conducted the research, and if the organisation or individual in question has the expertise required for conducting research on the topic. Additionally, assessing if the organisation has an interest in a specific research outcome is a good practice. If so, the research should be transparent in demonstrating how the different stages of the study were conducted to guarantee its objectivity.

International higher education research should be transparent in demonstrating how the different stages of a study were conducted to guarantee its objectivity.

Who funded the research?

It is of equal importance to check if a third party has sponsored or funded the study as this could further affect the objectivity of the study. If for example a student recruitment fair organiser sponsors a study on the efficiency of different recruitment methods, you should be critical of the results, particularly if student fairs emerge as the most efficient recruitment method.

How was the data collected?

In the social sciences, structured interviews and self-completion questionnaires are perhaps the two most common ways of collecting quantitative data. How the individuals in the sample, ie those approached to be surveyed, have been identified is crucial in determining the representativeness of the results. There are two main types of samples, namely probability and non-probability samples. A probability sample is a sample in which every individual in the population has the same chance of being included. It is also a prerequisite for being able to generalise the findings to the population (see below).

To illustrate the difference, let us say you survey first-year students by asking student clubs to share the survey on social media. Since this non-probability snowball sample has a greater likelihood of reaching students active in such clubs, the results won’t be representative or generalisable.

Is the sample size and response rate sufficient?

The bigger the sample size the higher the likelihood that the results are precise. After a sample size of around 1000, gains in precision become less pronounced. Often, however, due to limited time and money approaching such a large sample might not be feasible. The homogeneity of the population further affects the desired sample size; a more heterogeneous population requires a larger sample to include the different sub-groups of the population to a satisfactory degree. The response rate is a complementary measure to the sample size, showing how many of the suitable individuals in the sample have provided a usable response. In web surveys, response rates tend to be lower than in other types of surveys.

Does the research make use of secondary data?

Data can be collected either through primary or secondary sources, ie it can be collected for the purposes of the study or existing data can be utilised. If existing data sets collected by another organisation or researcher is used, reflecting on how credible the data source is, and how usable it is for the study in question, is important. Here, using common sense (and Google if necessary) takes you a long way.

Does the research measure what it claims to measure?

A commonly used term in statistics to convey the trustworthiness of research is ‘validity’. Validity refers to the extent to which a notion, conclusion or measurement is well founded and corresponds to reality. In other words, does it measure what it intends to measure? As an example, a study intends to investigate gender discrimination of faculty and in so doing, looks at the number of cases of discrimination brought forward by female faculty. Yet, as the study does not look at the reason for these discrimination complaints – whether it was indeed gender or ethnicity, religion, age or sexual orientation – the conclusion cannot be drawn that gender discrimination has increased.

Can the findings be generalised to my situation, institution or country?

When conducting research there is often a tendency to seek to generalise the findings. Two key criteria have to be met for this to be possible. First, results are applicable only to the population of the study. In other words, if a study analyses student satisfaction among students in the UK, the findings cannot be generalised to campuses in, for example, France. Second, data must be collected via a probability sample, ie every unit of analysis, here every student in the UK, has the same chance of being included in the sample.

Oftentimes reports lack many of the essential aspects of their data collection and analysis. Since time and money are, perhaps, the biggest influencers of research quality, and no one possesses infinite amounts of either, when undertaking research a balance often has to be struck between (cost-) effectiveness and quality. Transparently and clearly accounting for how the research has been conducted is central for the reader to evaluate the trustworthiness of the report in their hands.

Keep up to date

Want to stay abreast of news like this and other important developments in the field? In addition to highlights in the monthly newsletter, EAIE members enjoy full access to publications, research and more in our resource library.

This blog post addresses quantitative research methods in the social sciences, and draws from the book Bryman, A., Social Research Methods 4th edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 2012.

Anna-Malin Sandström EAIE, the Netherlands Anna-Malin is Policy Officer at the EAIE.

Share this page

You might also like....

Image of blog post Top data resources on international education in Europe

Top data resources on international education in Europe

Image of blog post The face of internationalisation in Europe: brand new EAIE study unveiled

The face of internationalisation in Europe: brand new EAIE study unveiled

Image of blog post What do we know about international education research – in Europe and elsewhere?

What do we know about international education research – in Europe and elsewhere?

Image of blog post What’s research got to do with me? That’s just for academics, isn’t it?

What’s research got to do with me? That’s just for academics, isn’t it?

  • More from M-W
  • To save this word, you'll need to log in. Log In

credibility

Definition of credibility

Examples of credibility in a sentence.

These examples are programmatically compiled from various online sources to illustrate current usage of the word 'credibility.' Any opinions expressed in the examples do not represent those of Merriam-Webster or its editors. Send us feedback about these examples.

Word History

see credible

1594, in the meaning defined at sense 1

Phrases Containing credibility

credibility gap

  • lend weight / credence / credibility

Dictionary Entries Near credibility

Cite this entry.

“Credibility.” Merriam-Webster.com Dictionary , Merriam-Webster, https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/credibility. Accessed 20 Feb. 2024.

Kids Definition

Kids definition of credibility, more from merriam-webster on credibility.

Thesaurus: All synonyms and antonyms for credibility

Nglish: Translation of credibility for Spanish Speakers

Britannica English: Translation of credibility for Arabic Speakers

Subscribe to America's largest dictionary and get thousands more definitions and advanced search—ad free!

Play Quordle: Guess all four words in a limited number of tries.  Each of your guesses must be a real 5-letter word.

Can you solve 4 words at once?

Word of the day.

See Definitions and Examples »

Get Word of the Day daily email!

Popular in Grammar & Usage

8 grammar terms you used to know, but forgot, homophones, homographs, and homonyms, commonly misspelled words, a guide to em dashes, en dashes, and hyphens, absent letters that are heard anyway, popular in wordplay, 12 more bird names that sound like insults (and sometimes are), the words of the week - feb. 16, 9 superb owl words, 'gaslighting,' 'woke,' 'democracy,' and other top lookups, 10 words for lesser-known games and sports, games & quizzes.

Play Blossom: Solve today's spelling word game by finding as many words as you can using just 7 letters. Longer words score more points.

  • How it works

What are Credible Sources – Tips to Identify Them With Examples

Published by Alvin Nicolas at October 12th, 2023 , Revised On October 12, 2023

In today’s information age, distinguishing between credible and unreliable sources is paramount. Whether you’re a student working on a research paper, a journalist crafting a news article, or simply a curious individual seeking reliable information, identifying credible sources is a critical skill.

In this comprehensive guide, we will explore what credible sources are? What makes a source credible, the types of credible sources available, where to find them, and how to evaluate web sources? Additionally, we will discuss concepts such as peer review, academic dishonesty, and differentiating between primary and secondary sources.

What is a Credible Source?

A credible source can be trusted to provide accurate, reliable, and unbiased information. Credible sources are essential for various purposes, including academic research , journalism, decision-making, and gaining knowledge on various topics . Credibility hinges on factors such as the source’s reputation, expertise, transparency, and the rigour of its research methods.

What Makes a Source Credible?

To determine the credibility of a source, consider the following criteria:

Author’s Qualifications 

Check the author’s credentials and expertise in the field. Are they qualified to speak on the subject?

Publication Source 

Examine where the information is published. Reputable sources include peer-reviewed journals, established news outlets, government websites, and academic institutions.

Citations and References 

A credible source will provide citations and references to support its claims, allowing you to verify the information independently.

Objectivity and Bias 

Evaluate whether the source exhibits bias or maintains objectivity. Credible sources strive to present balanced viewpoints.

Accuracy and Timeliness 

Ensure that the information is up-to-date and accurate. Outdated or inaccurate information can lead to misinformed decisions.

Now that we understand the characteristics of credible sources let’s explore the different types of sources that meet these criteria.

Types of Credible Sources

Credible sources come in various forms, each serving a unique research and information-gathering purpose. Here are some common types:

Academic Journals 

These are scholarly publications that undergo rigorous peer review. They are excellent sources for academic research .

Authored books, especially those published by reputable publishers, provide in-depth knowledge on specific subjects.

Government Publications 

Government websites and reports offer official information and statistics, often highly reliable.

News Outlets 

Established and respected news organisations are valuable current events and general knowledge sources.

Educational Institutions 

Websites of universities and educational institutions often host credible research papers, articles, and resources.

Experts and Interviews 

Interviews with subject experts or specialists can be credible sources if the interviewee has expertise in the field.

Now that we know where to find credible sources let’s explore strategies for locating them effectively.

Where to Find Credible Sources

Finding credible sources can be daunting, especially with the vast amount of online information. Here are some strategies to help you locate them:

Library Databases 

University and public libraries provide access to a wealth of academic databases and journals.

Online Libraries 

Websites like Google Scholar , JSTOR , and Project MUSE index a vast array of scholarly articles.

Government Websites 

Government agencies often publish reports, statistics, and official information online.

Explore the websites of universities and colleges for academic resources and research papers .

Reputable News Outlets 

Trustworthy news sources like BBC, The New York Times, and Reuters offer reliable information on current events.

Reference Books 

Encyclopedias and reference books provide foundational knowledge on various topics.

With these strategies in mind, you can navigate the information landscape more effectively. However, evaluating their credibility is crucial even when you find potential sources.

Evaluating Web Sources

The internet is a treasure trove of information but is also rife with misinformation and unreliable sources. When evaluating web sources, consider the following tips:

Check the Domain

Examine the website’s domain. Government, educational, and non-profit organisations typically have more reliable information.

Authorship 

Look for information about the author or organisation responsible for the content. Lack of authorship or transparency is a red flag.

Publication Date 

Ensure that the information is current. Some topics require the latest data and research.

Cross-Check Information 

Verify facts and claims by comparing information from multiple credible sources.

Bias and Objectivity 

Assess whether the source displays bias or maintains objectivity. Be cautious of sensationalism and extreme viewpoints.

Determine if the source provides citations and references to support its claims.

Site Design 

While not foolproof, professional and well-maintained websites often indicate credibility.

Applying these principles allows you to sift through web sources more effectively and identify the reliable ones.

The research done by our experts have:

  • Precision and Clarity
  • Zero Plagiarism
  • Authentic Sources

credibility definition research paper

Examples of Credible Vs. Non-Credible Sources

Let’s put the knowledge gained into practice by examining examples of credible and non-credible sources on a specific topic:

Topic: Climate Change

Credible Source

  • An article on climate change was published in the peer-reviewed journal “Environmental Science & Technology.”
  • The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report is available on its official website.
  • A book on climate science authored by a climatologist and published by a reputable academic press.

Non-Credible Source

  • A blog post on a personal website claiming that climate change is a hoax.
  • A social media post with no sources or citations that argues against the consensus on climate change.
  • An article on a news aggregation website with no byline or references to credible scientific studies. 

Ensuring Credibility and Integrity in Academia: Peer Review and Academic Honesty

The importance of peer review, definition of peer review.

Peer review is a crucial process in academic publishing. It involves experts in a particular field critically evaluating research articles before they are published in academic journals. 

Here’s how peer review works:

Submission 

An author submits their research article to a peer-reviewed journal.

Expert Evaluation 

The journal’s editor sends the article to experts (peers) in the same field for review.

Feedback and Revision 

Peers assess the article’s quality, methodology, and validity. They may suggest revisions or reject the article if it doesn’t meet scholarly standards.

Publication 

If accepted, the article is published, indicating that it has passed the scrutiny of experts in the field.

Peer review ensures that published research is of high quality and credibility. When conducting academic research, prioritise peer-reviewed sources to bolster the reliability of your work.

Academic Dishonesty: What You Should Know

Academic dishonesty refers to unethical behaviour in academia , which includes plagiarism, cheating, and the fabrication of data. It undermines the credibility of the individuals involved and the institutions they represent. To maintain your credibility and uphold academic integrity, familiarise yourself with your institution’s academic honesty policies and always attribute sources properly in your work.

Differentiating Primary and Secondary Sources

In research, it’s essential to differentiate between primary and secondary sources :

Primary Sources

These are original, first-hand documents or materials created during the event or research. Examples include diaries, letters, photographs, and scientific studies.

Secondary Sources 

Secondary sources provide analysis, interpretation, or commentary on primary sources. Examples include books, reviews, and articles that discuss or summarise research.

Understanding the distinction between primary and secondary sources helps you assess the depth and perspective of the information you encounter during your research.

Subsequently, in today’s information-driven society, finding reputable sources is a vital aptitude. You may confidently navigate the information sea by understanding what makes a source reputable, knowing where to find it, and refining your evaluation abilities.

Recognising the value of peer review, avoiding academic dishonesty, and distinguishing between primary and secondary sources all help you get accurate information and contribute to the body of knowledge. So, use the above tips and approaches to become a more discerning consumer and provider of credible data.

Frequently Asked Questions

What are credible sources, and why are they important.

Credible sources are trustworthy and reliable providers of information. They are important because they ensure the accuracy of your research and help you make informed decisions.

How can I determine if a source is credible?

You can assess source credibility by checking the author’s qualifications, the publication outlet, citations and references, objectivity, accuracy, and publication date.

Where can I find credible sources for academic research?

Reliable academic sources are often found in academic journals, books, government publications, university websites, and libraries.

What is peer review, and why is it crucial for credibility?

Peer review is a process where experts evaluate research before publication. It’s critical because it ensures high-quality and verified information.

How do I avoid academic dishonesty when citing sources?

Avoid academic dishonesty by properly citing sources using citation styles like APA, MLA, or Chicago, and always giving credit to the original authors to maintain integrity in your work.

You May Also Like

Academic sources, also known as scholarly sources or academic references, are materials used by researchers, scholars, and students to support their academic work. These sources are specifically created for use in academic contexts and contribute to the body of knowledge in a particular field of study.

In any form of written communication, be it academic writing, journalism, or even casual blogging, there comes a time when we need to reference another’s words to support, explain, or emphasise our points.

A secondary source refers to any material that interprets, analyses, or reviews information originally presented elsewhere. Unlike primary sources, which offer direct evidence or first-hand testimony, secondary sources work on those original materials, offering commentary, critiques, and perspectives.

USEFUL LINKS

LEARNING RESOURCES

DMCA.com Protection Status

COMPANY DETAILS

Research-Prospect-Writing-Service

  • How It Works

Sandralamorgese.com

Sandralamorgese.com

Fresh ideas for every day

  • Useful tips
  • Common questions

What is research credibility?

Credibility refers to the extent to which a research account is believable and appropriate, with particular reference to the level of agreement between participants and the researcher. The notion of credibility is most often associated with the framework presented by Yvonna Lincoln and Egon Guba.

How can research credibility be improved?

Steps for improving credibility include using multiple qualitative methods, data sources, and observers to check the consistency of findings (triangulation), verifying interpretations with participants, and providing transparent descriptions of experiences, including methods of observation and audit trails (Cope, 2014) …

How do you establish credibility in research?

If the specifics are comparable, the original research would be deemed more credible. It is essential that the original researcher supplies a highly detailed description of their situation and methods. Dependability: Dependability ensures that the research findings are consistent and could be repeated.

How is credibility determined?

Articles. The definition of a credible source can change depending on the discipline, but in general, for academic writing, a credible source is one that is unbiased and is backed up with evidence. When writing a research paper, always use and cite credible sources.

What is an example of a credibility?

The definition of credibility is the quality of being trustworthy or believable. The New England Journal of Medicine is an example of a publication with a high degree of credibility. When you tell a lie and get caught, this is an example of when your credibility is damaged. A story that strained our credibility.

What is an example of a credibility statement?

The credibility statement’s purpose is to convince the audience that the speaker is trustworthy and the information they’re providing is credible. For example, if you were giving a speech about ocean conservation, you might include the fact that you grew up living at the beach.

Why is credibility important in writing?

Why is this so important? In order to share new information and discoveries, readers must be conscious of the information they take in, where it’s coming from, and who wrote it. Discerning the credibility of a text helps minimize the spread of false or outdated information.

Which type of credibility is most important?

A speaker’s perceived credibility is a combination of competence, trustworthiness, and caring/goodwill. Research has shown that caring/goodwill is probably the most important factor of credibility because audiences want to know that a speaker has their best interests at heart.

What are the two elements of credibility?

In fact, the speaker’s ethos is a rhetorical strategy employed by an orator whose purpose is to “inspire trust in his audience.” Credibility has two key components: trustworthiness and expertise, which both have objective and subjective components.

What are the elements of credibility?

Expertise, reputation, and knowledge. These three sub-elements may seem very similar but are considered conceptually distinct and are measured differently. Firstly, it may not be necessary to meet all three elements of credibility to be perceived as credible.

What makes a trusted source?

A reliable source is one that provides a thorough, well-reasoned theory, argument, discussion, etc. based on strong evidence. Scholarly, peer-reviewed articles or books -written by researchers for students and researchers. These sources may provide some of their articles online for free.

IMAGES

  1. 8 ways to determine the credibility of research reports

    credibility definition research paper

  2. 1: Aspects of credibility.

    credibility definition research paper

  3. How to Establish Credibility In Business

    credibility definition research paper

  4. How to Determine the Credibility of Sources of Information Essay

    credibility definition research paper

  5. 6. Example of the Credibility Principles (ISEAL 2013).

    credibility definition research paper

  6. PPT

    credibility definition research paper

VIDEO

  1. Meaning of Research

  2. Definition # Research # Sociology

  3. Definition of Research

  4. fake scientific papers push research credibility to crisis point

  5. Contribution in research paper

  6. Finding HIGH-Impact Research Topics

COMMENTS

  1. PDF Understanding and Using Trustworthiness in Qualitative Research

    These are credibility, transferability, dependability, and confirmability. We consider each of these factors and add perspectives from others who have written on trustworthiness in qualitative research. Credibility and Trustworthiness. Credibility asks the "How congruent are the findings with reality?" As mentioned . previously, this is a ...

  2. What Are Credible Sources & How to Spot Them

    Published on August 26, 2021 by Tegan George . Revised on May 31, 2023. A credible source is free from bias and backed up with evidence. It is written by a trustworthy author or organization. There are a lot of sources out there, and it can be hard to tell what's credible and what isn't at first glance.

  3. Module 2: Establishing credibility

    In Module 1, you learned how to use databases to find the most relevant sources for your research. Module 2 focuses on assessing the sources you've found to make sure that they are appropriate for academic research. You'll learn what elements to examine in order to find out whether a publication is scholarly.

  4. Validity, reliability, and generalizability in qualitative research

    Five qualitative studies are chosen to illustrate how various methodologies of qualitative research helped in advancing primary healthcare, from novel monitoring of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) via mobile-health technology, [ 1] informed decision for colorectal cancer screening, [ 2] triaging out-of-hours GP services, [ 3] evalua...

  5. What is credibility in qualitative research and how do we establish it

    Credibility is the first aspect, or criterion, that must be established. It is seen as the most important aspect or criterion in establishing trustworthiness. This is because credibility essentially asks the researcher to clearly link the research study's findings with reality in order to demonstrate the truth of the research study's findings.

  6. Credibility in Qualitative and Quantitative Research in Education: A

    Credibility in Qualitative and Quantitative Research in Education: A Humean Approach Authors: Ray Ferdinand Medallo Gagani Cebu Normal University Abstract Research always conveys a commitment...

  7. Series: Practical guidance to qualitative research. Part 4

    Credibility The confidence that can be placed in the truth of the research findings. Credibility establishes whether the research findings represent plausible information drawn from the participants' original data and is a correct interpretation of the partic-ipants' original views. Transferability The degree to which the results of qualitative

  8. Impact AND credibility matter when researchers evaluate research

    Our research also indicates that when researchers inspect publications to evaluate credibility they try to minimize the amount of time they spend reading and understanding publications. Their tactics included selective reading of the abstracts, figures, and methods sections. Sometimes they said that they also look for signals such as whether ...

  9. Credibility: A Multidisciplinary Framework

    effect on credibility research, in that it highlights the need to reexamine what constitutes a perceived source and the blurring lines between tra- ditional concepts such as source, message, medium, and receiver. ... papers or in interpersonal face-to-face communication); we do so, how- ever, primarily to illustrate the uniqueness of ...

  10. 2.7: Evaluating the Quality and Credibility of Your Research

    But evaluating the quality and credibility of your research is more subtle and complicated than just determining the source of the evidence. Consider again the example from the beginning of this chapter about deciding which computer to buy. One of the things you would have to weigh is the credibility of the information you received from your ...

  11. Methods and Meanings: Credibility and Trustworthiness of ...

    Credibility is relevant to the inductive approach in this research, and is defined as the ability of the research to create knowledge that reflects participants' experiences and perspectives (Cope ...

  12. Trustworthiness in Qualitative Research

    Enhancing the quality and credibility of qualitative analysis. Health Services Research, 34(5), 1189 ... Faculty Conference Papers 2019. Foundation for Individual Rights in Education. ... (2021). Evidence-based research Series-Paper 1: What evidence-based research is and why is it important? Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 129, 151-157 ...

  13. Is My Source Credible?

    Home Articles The definition of a credible source can change depending on the discipline, but in general, for academic writing, a credible source is one that is unbiased and is backed up with evidence. When writing a research paper, always use and cite credible sources. Use this checklist to determine if an article is credible or not:

  14. Four guidelines students should follow when determining credibility of

    When gathering sources for your next term paper or project, it is important to determine credibility of research. Credibility can be seen as an important aspect of establishing trustworthiness, but it does require additional research. It's important to look at who the author is, their background and their education.

  15. The Importance of Establishing Credibility in Qualitative Research

    Qualitative research is a type of research that involves exploring the subjective experiences and meanings of individuals. Unlike quantitative research focusing on measurable variables, qualitative research relies on data gathered through observation, interviews, and other methods to provide insight into complex human phenomena.However, the credibility of qualitative research can be questioned ...

  16. Credibility

    Credibility comprises the objective and subjective components of the believability of a source or message. Credibility dates back to Aristotle theory of Rhetoric. Aristotle defines rhetoric as the ability to see what is possibly persuasive in every situation.

  17. What makes an online review credible? A systematic review of the

    This paper uses the systematic literature review method (Linnenluecke et al. 2020; Moher et al. 2009; Neumann 2021; Okoli 2015; Snyder 2019) to synthesize the research findings.Liberati et al. explains systematic review as a process for identifying, critically appraising relevant research and analyzing data.Systematic reviews differ from meta-analysis with respect to methods of analysis used.

  18. (PDF) Measuring the Concept of Credibility

    ... Research on credibility has primarily focused on the credibility of the journalist. This research is based on the findings from Charnley (1936) which detailed newspaper reporting...

  19. 8 ways to determine the credibility of research reports

    8 ways to determine the credibility of research reports - Blog | EAIE 8 ways to determine the credibility of research reports Policy & Strategy By Anna-Malin Sandström In our work, we are increasingly asked to make data-driven or fact-based decisions.

  20. Credibility Definition & Meaning

    1 : the quality or power of inspiring belief an account lacking in credibility 2 : capacity for belief Her account exceeds credibility. Examples of credibility in a Sentence The new evidence lends credibility to their theory. The scandal undermined her credibility as an honest politician.

  21. (PDF) The Influence of Perceived Credibility on Preferences for

    study involved a paper-based survey that was ad-indicate lower website credibility ratings by men. Although these results cannot be directly com- ministered to a sample of undergraduate students

  22. What are Credible Sources

    Credibility hinges on factors such as the source's reputation, expertise, transparency, and the rigour of its research methods. What Makes a Source Credible? To determine the credibility of a source, consider the following criteria: Author's Qualifications Check the author's credentials and expertise in the field.

  23. What is research credibility?

    Credibility refers to the extent to which a research account is believable and appropriate, with particular reference to the level of agreement between participants and the researcher. The notion of credibility is most often associated with the framework presented by Yvonna Lincoln and Egon Guba. How can research credibility be improved?

  24. Takeaways from Fani Willis' stunning testimony in Georgia

    Things quickly went off the rails. Willis didn't act much like a traditional witness and was more like a prosecutor, arguing with the defense attorneys, raising objections, making legal ...