credibility in research meaning

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

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 This study, which has not yet been peer reviewed, was supported by a grant from the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation and conducted with the assistance of the American Society for Cell Biology .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.

Note: PLOS issued the following press release on Tuesday, April 2nd. Brussels, Belgium, and San Francisco, United States – The Public Library…

Author: Iain Hrynaszkiewicz, Director, Open Research Solutions, PLOS; and Chris Heid, Head of Product, PLOS Summary Research by PLOS and Research Consulting…

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

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
• 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
• Medical Device Manufacturing
• 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

Sago Announces Launch of Sago Health to Elevate Healthcare Research

Sago Launches AI Video Summaries on QualBoard to Streamline Data Synthesis

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

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

• Case Studies
• Knowledge Kit

Digital Detox: How Different Generations Navigate Social Media Breaks

Building Trust Through Inclusive Healthcare Research Recruitment

• Get in touch

• Account Logins

The Importance of Establishing Credibility in Qualitative Research

• Resources , Blog

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 Connecting with Gen C Can Help Your Brand Grow

The Swing Voter Project Wisconsin: March 2024

The Deciders February 2024: African American voters in North Carolina

OnDemand: Moderator Minutes: Maximizing Efficiency with QualBoard – Streamline Your Projects with Support & AI

2024 Trends in Research: Fact or Fiction?

The Swing Voter Project in Michigan – February 2024

OnDemand: 5 Steps to High-Quality Data: Mitigating the Challenges of Data Quality in Quantitative Research

How Leading Brands Use Insights to Win Market Share

Take a deep dive into your favorite market research topics

How can we help support you and your research needs?

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

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

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: Apr 5, 2024 2:28 PM
• 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

• 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.

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.

What is Credibility in Qualitative Research?

A brief introduction to credibility, definition of credibility as criterion of trustworthiness, strategies to improve credibility.

• Data Triangulation
• Investigator Triangulation
• Method Triangulation
• Theory Triangulation
• Environmental Triangulation
• Prolonged Engagement and persistent observation: Spending an extended period in the research setting allows researchers to gain a deeper understanding of the phenomenon under study. This extended engagement helps develop rapport with participants, uncover hidden aspects, and enhance the credibility of the research findings.
• Member checking: Member Checking involves sharing the findings with the participants to validate the accuracy and authenticity of the interpretations. By seeking feedback from participants, researchers can verify the congruence between their interpretations and the participants' experiences, strengthening the credibility of the study.
• Reflexivity : Researchers engage in reflexivity by critically reflecting on their own biases, assumptions, and preconceptions that may influence the research process and findings. Transparently documenting these reflections enhances the credibility of the research and allows readers to understand the potential impact of the researcher's perspective.
• Thick Description : Providing rich and detailed descriptions of the research context, participants, and findings helps readers understand the research process and interpretations. Besides strengthening the credibility of the study, such comprehensive descriptions also enable readers to assess the Transferability and applicability of the findings to other contexts.
• Peer Debriefing : Researchers seek input from their peers or other experts in the field to review and provide critical feedback on their research process, data analysis, and interpretations. Peer Debriefing helps identify potential biases, gaps, or alternative explanations, thus enhancing the credibility of the research findings.

Conclusion on Credibility

• Search Menu
• Browse content in Arts and Humanities
• Browse content in Archaeology
• Anglo-Saxon and Medieval Archaeology
• Archaeological Methodology and Techniques
• Archaeology by Region
• Archaeology of Religion
• Archaeology of Trade and Exchange
• Biblical Archaeology
• Contemporary and Public Archaeology
• Environmental Archaeology
• Historical Archaeology
• History and Theory of Archaeology
• Industrial Archaeology
• Landscape Archaeology
• Mortuary Archaeology
• Prehistoric Archaeology
• Underwater Archaeology
• Urban Archaeology
• Zooarchaeology
• Browse content in Architecture
• Architectural Structure and Design
• History of Architecture
• Residential and Domestic Buildings
• Theory of Architecture
• Browse content in Art
• Art Subjects and Themes
• History of Art
• Industrial and Commercial Art
• Theory of Art
• Biographical Studies
• Byzantine Studies
• Browse content in Classical Studies
• Classical Literature
• Classical Reception
• Classical History
• Classical Philosophy
• Classical Mythology
• Classical Art and Architecture
• Classical Oratory and Rhetoric
• Greek and Roman Papyrology
• Greek and Roman Archaeology
• Greek and Roman Epigraphy
• Greek and Roman Law
• Late Antiquity
• Religion in the Ancient World
• Digital Humanities
• Browse content in History
• Colonialism and Imperialism
• Diplomatic History
• Environmental History
• Genealogy, Heraldry, Names, and Honours
• Genocide and Ethnic Cleansing
• Historical Geography
• History by Period
• History of Emotions
• History of Agriculture
• History of Education
• History of Gender and Sexuality
• Industrial History
• Intellectual History
• International History
• Labour History
• Legal and Constitutional History
• Local and Family History
• Maritime History
• Military History
• National Liberation and Post-Colonialism
• Oral History
• Political History
• Public History
• Regional and National History
• Revolutions and Rebellions
• Slavery and Abolition of Slavery
• Social and Cultural History
• Theory, Methods, and Historiography
• Urban History
• World History
• Browse content in Language Teaching and Learning
• Language Learning (Specific Skills)
• Language Teaching Theory and Methods
• Browse content in Linguistics
• Applied Linguistics
• Cognitive Linguistics
• Computational Linguistics
• Forensic Linguistics
• Grammar, Syntax and Morphology
• Historical and Diachronic Linguistics
• History of English
• Language Evolution
• Language Reference
• Language Variation
• Language Families
• Language Acquisition
• Lexicography
• Linguistic Anthropology
• Linguistic Theories
• Linguistic Typology
• Phonetics and Phonology
• Psycholinguistics
• Sociolinguistics
• Translation and Interpretation
• Writing Systems
• Browse content in Literature
• Bibliography
• Children's Literature Studies
• Literary Studies (Romanticism)
• Literary Studies (American)
• Literary Studies (Modernism)
• Literary Studies (Asian)
• Literary Studies (European)
• Literary Studies (Eco-criticism)
• Literary Studies - World
• Literary Studies (1500 to 1800)
• Literary Studies (19th Century)
• Literary Studies (20th Century onwards)
• Literary Studies (African American Literature)
• Literary Studies (British and Irish)
• Literary Studies (Early and Medieval)
• Literary Studies (Fiction, Novelists, and Prose Writers)
• Literary Studies (Gender Studies)
• Literary Studies (Graphic Novels)
• Literary Studies (History of the Book)
• Literary Studies (Plays and Playwrights)
• Literary Studies (Poetry and Poets)
• Literary Studies (Postcolonial Literature)
• Literary Studies (Queer Studies)
• Literary Studies (Science Fiction)
• Literary Studies (Travel Literature)
• Literary Studies (War Literature)
• Literary Studies (Women's Writing)
• Literary Theory and Cultural Studies
• Mythology and Folklore
• Shakespeare Studies and Criticism
• Browse content in Media Studies
• Browse content in Music
• Applied Music
• Dance and Music
• Ethics in Music
• Ethnomusicology
• Gender and Sexuality in Music
• Medicine and Music
• Music Cultures
• Music and Media
• Music and Culture
• Music and Religion
• Music Education and Pedagogy
• Music Theory and Analysis
• Musical Scores, Lyrics, and Libretti
• Musical Structures, Styles, and Techniques
• Musicology and Music History
• Performance Practice and Studies
• Race and Ethnicity in Music
• Sound Studies
• Browse content in Performing Arts
• Browse content in Philosophy
• Aesthetics and Philosophy of Art
• Epistemology
• Feminist Philosophy
• History of Western Philosophy
• Metaphysics
• Moral Philosophy
• Non-Western Philosophy
• Philosophy of Language
• Philosophy of Mind
• Philosophy of Perception
• Philosophy of Action
• Philosophy of Law
• Philosophy of Religion
• Philosophy of Science
• Philosophy of Mathematics and Logic
• Practical Ethics
• Social and Political Philosophy
• Browse content in Religion
• Biblical Studies
• Christianity
• East Asian Religions
• History of Religion
• Judaism and Jewish Studies
• Qumran Studies
• Religion and Education
• Religion and Health
• Religion and Politics
• Religion and Science
• Religion and Law
• Religion and Art, Literature, and Music
• Religious Studies
• Browse content in Society and Culture
• Cookery, Food, and Drink
• Cultural Studies
• Customs and Traditions
• Ethical Issues and Debates
• Hobbies, Games, Arts and Crafts
• Lifestyle, Home, and Garden
• Natural world, Country Life, and Pets
• Popular Beliefs and Controversial Knowledge
• Sports and Outdoor Recreation
• Technology and Society
• Travel and Holiday
• Visual Culture
• Browse content in Law
• Arbitration
• Browse content in Company and Commercial Law
• Commercial Law
• Company Law
• Browse content in Comparative Law
• Systems of Law
• Competition Law
• Browse content in Constitutional and Administrative Law
• Government Powers
• Judicial Review
• Local Government Law
• Military and Defence Law
• Parliamentary and Legislative Practice
• Construction Law
• Contract Law
• Browse content in Criminal Law
• Criminal Procedure
• Criminal Evidence Law
• Sentencing and Punishment
• Employment and Labour Law
• Environment and Energy Law
• Browse content in Financial Law
• Banking Law
• Insolvency Law
• History of Law
• Human Rights and Immigration
• Intellectual Property Law
• Browse content in International Law
• Private International Law and Conflict of Laws
• Public International Law
• IT and Communications Law
• Jurisprudence and Philosophy of Law
• Law and Society
• Law and Politics
• Browse content in Legal System and Practice
• Courts and Procedure
• Legal Skills and Practice
• Primary Sources of Law
• Regulation of Legal Profession
• Medical and Healthcare Law
• Browse content in Policing
• Criminal Investigation and Detection
• Police and Security Services
• Police Procedure and Law
• Police Regional Planning
• Browse content in Property Law
• Personal Property Law
• Study and Revision
• Terrorism and National Security Law
• Browse content in Trusts Law
• Wills and Probate or Succession
• Browse content in Medicine and Health
• Browse content in Allied Health Professions
• Arts Therapies
• Clinical Science
• Dietetics and Nutrition
• Occupational Therapy
• Operating Department Practice
• Physiotherapy
• Radiography
• Speech and Language Therapy
• Browse content in Anaesthetics
• General Anaesthesia
• Neuroanaesthesia
• Clinical Neuroscience
• Browse content in Clinical Medicine
• Acute Medicine
• Cardiovascular Medicine
• Clinical Genetics
• Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics
• Dermatology
• Endocrinology and Diabetes
• Gastroenterology
• Genito-urinary Medicine
• Geriatric Medicine
• Infectious Diseases
• Medical Toxicology
• Medical Oncology
• Pain Medicine
• Palliative Medicine
• Rehabilitation Medicine
• Respiratory Medicine and Pulmonology
• Rheumatology
• Sleep Medicine
• Sports and Exercise Medicine
• Community Medical Services
• Critical Care
• Emergency Medicine
• Forensic Medicine
• Haematology
• History of Medicine
• Browse content in Medical Skills
• Clinical Skills
• Communication Skills
• Nursing Skills
• Surgical Skills
• Medical Ethics
• Browse content in Medical Dentistry
• Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery
• Paediatric Dentistry
• Restorative Dentistry and Orthodontics
• Surgical Dentistry
• Medical Statistics and Methodology
• Browse content in Neurology
• Clinical Neurophysiology
• Neuropathology
• Nursing Studies
• Browse content in Obstetrics and Gynaecology
• Gynaecology
• Occupational Medicine
• Ophthalmology
• Otolaryngology (ENT)
• Browse content in Paediatrics
• Neonatology
• Browse content in Pathology
• Chemical Pathology
• Clinical Cytogenetics and Molecular Genetics
• Histopathology
• Medical Microbiology and Virology
• Patient Education and Information
• Browse content in Pharmacology
• Psychopharmacology
• Browse content in Popular Health
• Caring for Others
• Complementary and Alternative Medicine
• Self-help and Personal Development
• Browse content in Preclinical Medicine
• Cell Biology
• Molecular Biology and Genetics
• Reproduction, Growth and Development
• Primary Care
• Professional Development in Medicine
• Browse content in Psychiatry
• Addiction Medicine
• Child and Adolescent Psychiatry
• Forensic Psychiatry
• Learning Disabilities
• Old Age Psychiatry
• Psychotherapy
• Browse content in Public Health and Epidemiology
• Epidemiology
• Public Health
• Browse content in Radiology
• Clinical Radiology
• Interventional Radiology
• Nuclear Medicine
• Radiation Oncology
• Reproductive Medicine
• Browse content in Surgery
• Cardiothoracic Surgery
• Gastro-intestinal and Colorectal Surgery
• General Surgery
• Neurosurgery
• Paediatric Surgery
• Peri-operative Care
• Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery
• Surgical Oncology
• Transplant Surgery
• Trauma and Orthopaedic Surgery
• Vascular Surgery
• Browse content in Science and Mathematics
• Browse content in Biological Sciences
• Aquatic Biology
• Biochemistry
• Bioinformatics and Computational Biology
• Developmental Biology
• Ecology and Conservation
• Evolutionary Biology
• Genetics and Genomics
• Microbiology
• Molecular and Cell Biology
• Natural History
• Plant Sciences and Forestry
• Research Methods in Life Sciences
• Structural Biology
• Systems Biology
• Zoology and Animal Sciences
• Browse content in Chemistry
• Analytical Chemistry
• Computational Chemistry
• Crystallography
• Environmental Chemistry
• Industrial Chemistry
• Inorganic Chemistry
• Materials Chemistry
• Medicinal Chemistry
• Mineralogy and Gems
• Organic Chemistry
• Physical Chemistry
• Polymer Chemistry
• Study and Communication Skills in Chemistry
• Theoretical Chemistry
• Browse content in Computer Science
• Artificial Intelligence
• Computer Architecture and Logic Design
• Game Studies
• Human-Computer Interaction
• Mathematical Theory of Computation
• Programming Languages
• Software Engineering
• Systems Analysis and Design
• Virtual Reality
• Browse content in Computing
• Business Applications
• Computer Games
• Computer Security
• Computer Networking and Communications
• Digital Lifestyle
• Graphical and Digital Media Applications
• Operating Systems
• Browse content in Earth Sciences and Geography
• Atmospheric Sciences
• Environmental Geography
• Geology and the Lithosphere
• Maps and Map-making
• Meteorology and Climatology
• Oceanography and Hydrology
• Palaeontology
• Physical Geography and Topography
• Regional Geography
• Soil Science
• Urban Geography
• Browse content in Engineering and Technology
• Agriculture and Farming
• Biological Engineering
• Civil Engineering, Surveying, and Building
• Electronics and Communications Engineering
• Energy Technology
• Engineering (General)
• Environmental Science, Engineering, and Technology
• History of Engineering and Technology
• Mechanical Engineering and Materials
• Technology of Industrial Chemistry
• Transport Technology and Trades
• Browse content in Environmental Science
• Applied Ecology (Environmental Science)
• Conservation of the Environment (Environmental Science)
• Environmental Sustainability
• Environmentalist Thought and Ideology (Environmental Science)
• Management of Land and Natural Resources (Environmental Science)
• Natural Disasters (Environmental Science)
• Nuclear Issues (Environmental Science)
• Pollution and Threats to the Environment (Environmental Science)
• Social Impact of Environmental Issues (Environmental Science)
• History of Science and Technology
• Browse content in Materials Science
• Ceramics and Glasses
• Composite Materials
• Metals, Alloying, and Corrosion
• Nanotechnology
• Browse content in Mathematics
• Applied Mathematics
• Biomathematics and Statistics
• History of Mathematics
• Mathematical Education
• Mathematical Finance
• Mathematical Analysis
• Numerical and Computational Mathematics
• Probability and Statistics
• Pure Mathematics
• Browse content in Neuroscience
• Cognition and Behavioural Neuroscience
• Development of the Nervous System
• Disorders of the Nervous System
• History of Neuroscience
• Invertebrate Neurobiology
• Molecular and Cellular Systems
• Neuroendocrinology and Autonomic Nervous System
• Neuroscientific Techniques
• Sensory and Motor Systems
• Browse content in Physics
• Astronomy and Astrophysics
• Atomic, Molecular, and Optical Physics
• Biological and Medical Physics
• Classical Mechanics
• Computational Physics
• Condensed Matter Physics
• Electromagnetism, Optics, and Acoustics
• History of Physics
• Mathematical and Statistical Physics
• Measurement Science
• Nuclear Physics
• Particles and Fields
• Plasma Physics
• Quantum Physics
• Relativity and Gravitation
• Semiconductor and Mesoscopic Physics
• Browse content in Psychology
• Affective Sciences
• Clinical Psychology
• Cognitive Psychology
• Cognitive Neuroscience
• Criminal and Forensic Psychology
• Developmental Psychology
• Educational Psychology
• Evolutionary Psychology
• Health Psychology
• History and Systems in Psychology
• Music Psychology
• Neuropsychology
• Organizational Psychology
• Psychological Assessment and Testing
• Psychology of Human-Technology Interaction
• Psychology Professional Development and Training
• Research Methods in Psychology
• Social Psychology
• Browse content in Social Sciences
• Browse content in Anthropology
• Anthropology of Religion
• Human Evolution
• Medical Anthropology
• Physical Anthropology
• Regional Anthropology
• Social and Cultural Anthropology
• Theory and Practice of Anthropology
• Browse content in Business and Management
• Business Ethics
• Business History
• Business Strategy
• Business and Technology
• Business and Government
• Business and the Environment
• Comparative Management
• Corporate Governance
• Corporate Social Responsibility
• Entrepreneurship
• Health Management
• Human Resource Management
• Industrial and Employment Relations
• Industry Studies
• Information and Communication Technologies
• International Business
• Knowledge Management
• Management and Management Techniques
• Operations Management
• Organizational Theory and Behaviour
• Pensions and Pension Management
• Public and Nonprofit Management
• Strategic Management
• Supply Chain Management
• Browse content in Criminology and Criminal Justice
• Criminal Justice
• Criminology
• Forms of Crime
• International and Comparative Criminology
• Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice
• Development Studies
• Browse content in Economics
• Agricultural, Environmental, and Natural Resource Economics
• Asian Economics
• Behavioural Finance
• Behavioural Economics and Neuroeconomics
• Econometrics and Mathematical Economics
• Economic History
• Economic Methodology
• Economic Systems
• Economic Development and Growth
• Financial Markets
• Financial Institutions and Services
• General Economics and Teaching
• Health, Education, and Welfare
• History of Economic Thought
• International Economics
• Labour and Demographic Economics
• Law and Economics
• Macroeconomics and Monetary Economics
• Microeconomics
• Public Economics
• Urban, Rural, and Regional Economics
• Welfare Economics
• Browse content in Education
• Adult Education and Continuous Learning
• Care and Counselling of Students
• Early Childhood and Elementary Education
• Educational Equipment and Technology
• Educational Strategies and Policy
• Higher and Further Education
• Organization and Management of Education
• Philosophy and Theory of Education
• Schools Studies
• Secondary Education
• Teaching of a Specific Subject
• Teaching of Specific Groups and Special Educational Needs
• Teaching Skills and Techniques
• Browse content in Environment
• Applied Ecology (Social Science)
• Climate Change
• Conservation of the Environment (Social Science)
• Environmentalist Thought and Ideology (Social Science)
• Natural Disasters (Environment)
• Social Impact of Environmental Issues (Social Science)
• Browse content in Human Geography
• Cultural Geography
• Economic Geography
• Political Geography
• Browse content in Interdisciplinary Studies
• Communication Studies
• Museums, Libraries, and Information Sciences
• Browse content in Politics
• African Politics
• Asian Politics
• Chinese Politics
• Comparative Politics
• Conflict Politics
• Elections and Electoral Studies
• Environmental Politics
• European Union
• Foreign Policy
• Gender and Politics
• Human Rights and Politics
• Indian Politics
• International Relations
• International Organization (Politics)
• International Political Economy
• Irish Politics
• Latin American Politics
• Middle Eastern Politics
• Political Behaviour
• Political Economy
• Political Institutions
• Political Theory
• Political Methodology
• Political Communication
• Political Philosophy
• Political Sociology
• Politics and Law
• Public Policy
• Public Administration
• Quantitative Political Methodology
• Regional Political Studies
• Russian Politics
• Security Studies
• State and Local Government
• UK Politics
• US Politics
• Browse content in Regional and Area Studies
• African Studies
• Asian Studies
• East Asian Studies
• Japanese Studies
• Latin American Studies
• Middle Eastern Studies
• Native American Studies
• Scottish Studies
• Browse content in Research and Information
• Research Methods
• Browse content in Social Work
• Addictions and Substance Misuse
• Adoption and Fostering
• Care of the Elderly
• Child and Adolescent Social Work
• Couple and Family Social Work
• Developmental and Physical Disabilities Social Work
• Direct Practice and Clinical Social Work
• Emergency Services
• Human Behaviour and the Social Environment
• International and Global Issues in Social Work
• Mental and Behavioural Health
• Social Justice and Human Rights
• Social Policy and Advocacy
• Social Work and Crime and Justice
• Social Work Macro Practice
• Social Work Practice Settings
• Social Work Research and Evidence-based Practice
• Welfare and Benefit Systems
• Browse content in Sociology
• Childhood Studies
• Community Development
• Comparative and Historical Sociology
• Economic Sociology
• Gender and Sexuality
• Gerontology and Ageing
• Health, Illness, and Medicine
• Marriage and the Family
• Migration Studies
• Occupations, Professions, and Work
• Organizations
• Population and Demography
• Race and Ethnicity
• Social Theory
• Social Movements and Social Change
• Social Research and Statistics
• Social Stratification, Inequality, and Mobility
• Sociology of Religion
• Sociology of Education
• Sport and Leisure
• Urban and Rural Studies
• Browse content in Warfare and Defence
• Defence Strategy, Planning, and Research
• Land Forces and Warfare
• Military Administration
• Military Life and Institutions
• Naval Forces and Warfare
• Other Warfare and Defence Issues
• Peace Studies and Conflict Resolution
• Weapons and Equipment

• < Previous chapter
• Next chapter >

3 Critically Appraising the Quality and Credibility of Quantitative Research for Systematic Reviews

• Published: September 2011
• Cite Icon Cite
• Permissions Icon Permissions

This chapter looks at how to evaluate the quality and credibility of various types of quantitative research that might be included in a systematic review. Various factors that determine the quality and believability of a study will be presented, including, • assessing the study’s methods in terms of internal validity • examining factors associated with external validity and relevance; and • evaluating the credibility of the research and researcher in terms of possible biases that might influence the research design, analysis, or conclusions. The importance of transparency is highlighted.

Signed in as

Institutional accounts.

• GoogleCrawler [DO NOT DELETE]
• Google Scholar Indexing

Personal account

• Sign in with email/username & password
• Get email alerts
• Save searches
• Purchase content
• Activate your purchase/trial code

Institutional access

• Sign in with a library card Sign in with username/password Recommend to your librarian
• Institutional account management
• Get help with access

Access to content on Oxford Academic is often provided through institutional subscriptions and purchases. If you are a member of an institution with an active account, you may be able to access content in one of the following ways:

IP based access

Typically, access is provided across an institutional network to a range of IP addresses. This authentication occurs automatically, and it is not possible to sign out of an IP authenticated account.

Sign in through your institution

Choose this option to get remote access when outside your institution. Shibboleth/Open Athens technology is used to provide single sign-on between your institution’s website and Oxford Academic.

• Click Sign in through your institution.
• Select your institution from the list provided, which will take you to your institution's website to sign in.
• When on the institution site, please use the credentials provided by your institution. Do not use an Oxford Academic personal account.
• Following successful sign in, you will be returned to Oxford Academic.

If your institution is not listed or you cannot sign in to your institution’s website, please contact your librarian or administrator.

Sign in with a library card

Enter your library card number to sign in. If you cannot sign in, please contact your librarian.

Society Members

Society member access to a journal is achieved in one of the following ways:

Sign in through society site

Many societies offer single sign-on between the society website and Oxford Academic. If you see ‘Sign in through society site’ in the sign in pane within a journal:

• Click Sign in through society site.
• When on the society site, please use the credentials provided by that society. Do not use an Oxford Academic personal account.

If you do not have a society account or have forgotten your username or password, please contact your society.

Sign in using a personal account

Some societies use Oxford Academic personal accounts to provide access to their members. See below.

A personal account can be used to get email alerts, save searches, purchase content, and activate subscriptions.

Some societies use Oxford Academic personal accounts to provide access to their members.

Viewing your signed in accounts

Click the account icon in the top right to:

• View your signed in personal account and access account management features.
• View the institutional accounts that are providing access.

Signed in but can't access content

Oxford Academic is home to a wide variety of products. The institutional subscription may not cover the content that you are trying to access. If you believe you should have access to that content, please contact your librarian.

For librarians and administrators, your personal account also provides access to institutional account management. Here you will find options to view and activate subscriptions, manage institutional settings and access options, access usage statistics, and more.

Our books are available by subscription or purchase to libraries and institutions.

• About Oxford Academic
• Publish journals with us
• University press partners
• What we publish
• New features  
• Open access
• Rights and permissions
• Accessibility
• Advertising
• Media enquiries
• Oxford University Press
• Oxford Languages
• University of Oxford

Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the University's objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide

• Copyright © 2024 Oxford University Press
• Cookie settings
• Cookie policy
• Privacy policy
• Legal notice

This Feature Is Available To Subscribers Only

Sign In or Create an Account

This PDF is available to Subscribers Only

For full access to this pdf, sign in to an existing account, or purchase an annual subscription.

Log in using your username and password

• Search More Search for this keyword Advanced search
• Latest content
• Current issue
• Write for Us
• BMJ Journals More You are viewing from: Google Indexer

You are here

• Volume 18, Issue 2
• Issues of validity and reliability in qualitative research
• Article Text
• Article info
• Citation Tools
• Rapid Responses
• Article metrics

• Helen Noble 1 ,
• Joanna Smith 2
• 1 School of Nursing and Midwifery, Queens's University Belfast , Belfast , UK
• 2 School of Human and Health Sciences, University of Huddersfield , Huddersfield , UK
• Correspondence to Dr Helen Noble School of Nursing and Midwifery, Queens's University Belfast, Medical Biology Centre, 97 Lisburn Rd, Belfast BT9 7BL, UK; helen.noble{at}qub.ac.uk

https://doi.org/10.1136/eb-2015-102054

Statistics from Altmetric.com

Request permissions.

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

Evaluating the quality of research is essential if findings are to be utilised in practice and incorporated into care delivery. In a previous article we explored ‘bias’ across research designs and outlined strategies to minimise bias. 1 The aim of this article is to further outline rigour, or the integrity in which a study is conducted, and ensure the credibility of findings in relation to qualitative research. Concepts such as reliability, validity and generalisability typically associated with quantitative research and alternative terminology will be compared in relation to their application to qualitative research. In addition, some of the strategies adopted by qualitative researchers to enhance the credibility of their research are outlined.

Are the terms reliability and validity relevant to ensuring credibility in qualitative research?

Although the tests and measures used to establish the validity and reliability of quantitative research cannot be applied to qualitative research, there are ongoing debates about whether terms such as validity, reliability and generalisability are appropriate to evaluate qualitative research. 2–4 In the broadest context these terms are applicable, with validity referring to the integrity and application of the methods undertaken and the precision in which the findings accurately reflect the data, while reliability describes consistency within the employed analytical procedures. 4 However, if qualitative methods are inherently different from quantitative methods in terms of philosophical positions and purpose, then alterative frameworks for establishing rigour are appropriate. 3 Lincoln and Guba 5 offer alternative criteria for demonstrating rigour within qualitative research namely truth value, consistency and neutrality and applicability. Table 1 outlines the differences in terminology and criteria used to evaluate qualitative research.

• View inline

Terminology and criteria used to evaluate the credibility of research findings

What strategies can qualitative researchers adopt to ensure the credibility of the study findings?

Unlike quantitative researchers, who apply statistical methods for establishing validity and reliability of research findings, qualitative researchers aim to design and incorporate methodological strategies to ensure the ‘trustworthiness’ of the findings. Such strategies include:

Accounting for personal biases which may have influenced findings; 6

Acknowledging biases in sampling and ongoing critical reflection of methods to ensure sufficient depth and relevance of data collection and analysis; 3

Meticulous record keeping, demonstrating a clear decision trail and ensuring interpretations of data are consistent and transparent; 3 , 4

Establishing a comparison case/seeking out similarities and differences across accounts to ensure different perspectives are represented; 6 , 7

Including rich and thick verbatim descriptions of participants’ accounts to support findings; 7

Demonstrating clarity in terms of thought processes during data analysis and subsequent interpretations 3 ;

Engaging with other researchers to reduce research bias; 3

Respondent validation: includes inviting participants to comment on the interview transcript and whether the final themes and concepts created adequately reflect the phenomena being investigated; 4

Data triangulation, 3 , 4 whereby different methods and perspectives help produce a more comprehensive set of findings. 8 , 9

Table 2 provides some specific examples of how some of these strategies were utilised to ensure rigour in a study that explored the impact of being a family carer to patients with stage 5 chronic kidney disease managed without dialysis. 10

Strategies for enhancing the credibility of qualitative research

In summary, it is imperative that all qualitative researchers incorporate strategies to enhance the credibility of a study during research design and implementation. Although there is no universally accepted terminology and criteria used to evaluate qualitative research, we have briefly outlined some of the strategies that can enhance the credibility of study findings.

• Sandelowski M
• Lincoln YS ,
• Barrett M ,
• Mayan M , et al
• Greenhalgh T
• Lingard L ,

Twitter Follow Joanna Smith at @josmith175 and Helen Noble at @helnoble

Competing interests None.

Read the full text or download the PDF:

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 .

Scribbr Citation Checker New

The AI-powered Citation Checker helps you avoid common mistakes such as:

• Missing commas and periods
• Incorrect usage of “et al.”
• Ampersands (&) in narrative citations
• Missing reference entries

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.

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 April 10, 2024, from https://www.scribbr.com/working-with-sources/credible-sources/

Is this article helpful?

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, unlimited academic ai-proofreading.

✔ Document error-free in 5minutes ✔ Unlimited document corrections ✔ Specialized in correcting academic texts

Universal Teacher

• Mobile Phone
• Advertising

Credibility in Qualitative Research

Internal validity is very important in qualitative research, as research workers are able to demonstrate the reality of the individuals through in depth description of the discussion. Theoretical concepts must have generalisability and transferability , which means that concepts must be applicable to other similar situations. This stresses the significance of thick description so that the reader has the knowledge on which to base judgment.

Steps to Improve Credibility in Qualitative Research

• Extended participation: This represents investment of adequate time to learn culture, test for false information, build trust and usually repeating the procedure central to the case study. This can be attained through consultation of appropriate documents and preliminary visits to the companies themselves.
• Continuous observation: Certain situations concerning to the phenomenon under study should be observed over an adequate period of time to spot certain aspects highly relevant to it.
• Triangulation: This means the use of multiple referents to draw conclusions. It involves evidence from various sources; different methods of collecting data and different investigators. The usage of triangulation permits the investigator to strive to distinguish true information. For example, the researcher should conduct a literature review to familiarize herself with the content of the phenomenon under investigation, collect data by means of a focus group interview to get in-depth information. A different type of triangulation may include the use of a wide selection of informants. This is one way of triangulating via data sources. Here individual opinions and experiences could be validated against others and, eventually, a rich picture of the attitudes, needs or behaviour of those under scrutiny could be constructed in line with the contributions of a range of individuals.
• Peer debriefing: This describes exposing the researcher’s analysis and conclusion to a coworker or other peer on a continuous basis for the development of both design and analysis of the study. For example, the researcher can conduct a pre-exercise interview with participants who meet the criteria.
• Usage of well-established research methods: The particular methods utilized, such as the line of questioning pursued in the data collecting sessions and the ways of data analysis, must be derived, where possible, from those that have been successfully applied to previous comparable projects.
• Random sampling of individuals to serve as informants: Even though much qualitative research includes the use of purposive sampling, a random method may eliminate charges associated with investigator bias in the selection of individuals. Random sampling can also help to make sure any unknown influences are dispersed equally within the sample. In addition to that, it may be that a random technique is specifically suitable to the character of the research.
• A major drawback to random method, however, is due to the fact that the researcher doesn’t have control over the selection of informants, it is possible that quiet, uncooperative or inarticulate people could be chosen.
• Strategies to guarantee trustworthiness in informants when contributing data: Specifically, every individual who is contacted needs to be given opportunities to decline to participate in the project in order to make certain that data collection sessions include only those who’re really prepared to take part and ready to offer information openly. Participants should be motivated to be frank from the beginning of each session, with the investigator looking to establish a connection in the opening moments and indicating that there are no right answers to the questions which will be asked.
• Thick description of the phenomenon under scrutiny: In depth description is definitely an essential provision for encouraging credibility because it helps you to express the actual situations which have been researched and, to an extent, the contexts which surround them. Without this understanding, it is not easy for the reader of the final account to determine the extent to which the overall findings ring true.

Watch a Video on Credibility in Qualitative Research

Credibility in research  is an assessment of whether or not the research findings represent a “credible” conceptual interpretation of the data drawn from the participants’ original data.

The above provisions could be made by research workers to promote confidence that they have correctly recorded the phenomena being studied.

Speak Your Mind

Return to top of page

Privacy Policy   Copyright © 2024 · universalteacher.com

Qualitative research: the evaluation of its credibility, fittingness, and auditability

Affiliation.

• 1 University of Rhode Island, Kingston.
• PMID: 8470379
• DOI: 10.1177/019394599301500212

The three criteria of credibility, fittingness, and auditability have been focused on in the hope of facilitating the critique of qualitative research. Once criteria that are appropriate to qualitative methodologies are developed, the scientific merit of these research studies can truly be appreciated. If traditional scientific criteria relevant to quantitative studies are used to critique qualitative methods, the development and acceptance of this paradigm-transcending research will be hindered.

• Clinical Protocols / standards*
• Nursing Methodology Research / methods
• Nursing Methodology Research / standards*
• Reproducibility of Results

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

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• Evid Based Spine Care J
• v.5(1); 2014 Apr

Credibility Matters: Mind the Gap

Andrea c. skelly.

1 Spectrum Research, Inc., Tacoma, Washington, United States

Introduction

Clinicians, policy makers, and patients need to be able to rely on high-quality scientific research to make informed decisions about health care options and policy. Frustration ensues on all levels when there is low confidence in the quality and integrity of available research on spine care. When research quality is low and reporting of it is poor, clinicians and patients may have confusion regarding best health care options. Policy makers may not reimburse for treatments or diagnostic modalities that are deemed not effective based on available evidence. At the most basic level, all parties want the same thing: to do what “works,” yet they all suffer when there is low confidence in evidence.

There is a credibility gap that spans all aspects of medical research, from study planning to study reporting to availability of data for verification to final study publication. Several studies provide empirical evidence on publication and related biases and how conclusions may differ based on what is and is not reported and how. 1 2 3 One example of publication-related bias is seen in the recent controversy surrounding results from the Yale Open Data Access (YODA) studies 4 5 as compared with original trial publications on bone morphogenetic protein. A primary conclusion from consideration of these reports was a call for timely and complete transparency of data reporting. 6 7

Subsequently, media and scientific circles have reiterated strong calls to reduce study bias in study analysis and reporting. 8 9 10 11

Outcome reporting bias is one type of publication-related bias and is an under-recognized problem. 12 13 This occurs when there is selective reporting of some outcomes but not others, possibly depending on the nature and direction of the findings. In addition to ethical concerns regarding such selective reporting, the reported results can be misleading. One example of the impact of such selective reporting is an analysis of 283 Cochrane Reviews. Kirkham et al report that 34% of reviews contained at least one trial with high suspicion of outcome reporting bias for the primary outcome. 12 Sensitivity analysis on these reviews revealed that the treatment effect was reduced by 20% or more in 23% of reviews. After adjustment for outcome reporting bias, 19% of meta-analyses with a statistically significant result became non-significant and 26% would have overestimated the treatment effect by 20% or more. This can impact policy making and clinical decision making and potentially result in harm to patients.

Transparency and attention to detail in research design, specification of outcomes, analysis, reporting, and dissemination are critical to “minding the gap” regardless of study design or level and type of funding. This article (and previous Science in Spine articles) describes some key components for such transparency related to conducting research with a focus on outcomes reporting.

Where Does It Start?

The credibility gap must be considered and addressed at all levels of study planning, reporting, and publication of any study, regardless of design. It starts with:

• Fully formulating a focused and answerable study question as described in the previous Science in Spine. 14
• Creating specific study aims and testable hypotheses that are objectively stated a priori .
• Using a structured approach to specify the study question and to guide research design and execution. The Patients, Intervention, Comparison, and Outcomes (PICO) table for treatment and diagnostic studies or a Patients, Prognostic factors, and Outcomes (PPO) table for prognostic studies is one method for providing the blueprint for conceptualizing, operationalizing, and reporting results from your study.
• Using your PICO/PPO to stay on track. Use of the PICO/PPO topology or other organizing framework can enhance the quality of your study and the quality of reporting by decreasing ambiguity, clarifying objectives, as well as identifying and focusing on aspects of primary importance. All reported outcomes should be traced back to your PICO/PPO, study question, and specific aims.

The value of using the PICO format was highlighted in a study of 89 RCT reports. 15 Rios et al created a score based on the PICO elements and then examined the extent to which the reports stated the PICO elements of a structured research question and correlation with an overall quality reporting score based on the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) guidelines. The result: The PICO-related score was independently associated with the overall reporting quality score. The implication is that when care is taken to specify the question and to use a framework for study design and execution, reporting of study components related to quality is higher as is the perceived quality of the study. It also helps prevent biases such as outcome reporting bias. In the era of evidence-based practice, attention to the quality of study design, execution, and reporting is important to policy makers and others.

The Components and Applying the Concept

Table 1 provides an overview of PICO/PPO. In many instances, it is logical to add two components, one for Timing and one for Setting, modifying the acronym to PICOTS/PPOTS. The “S” may also be used to denote study design .

• Patients : A homogenous patient population is best. It is important to define the patient population in terms of all factors that relate to the condition of interest, patient demographic features (e.g., age, gender), behaviors (e.g., smoking), medical history, medications (e.g., steroids, NSAIDS, etc.) that may influence outcomes, general health factors, comorbidities, factors that may be associated with the treatment selection (e.g., location/severity of condition), and others that may be relevant to treatment selection or influence of outcomes. Are patients with previous surgical interventions to be included or excluded? Are specific pathologies to be excluded?
• Intervention : This may be a newer or novel treatment that is to be compared with a more standard treatment (called the comparator).
• Comparator : This is your “control” group and consists of those receiving the alternative, standard, or “other” treatment to which the intervention will be compared. All comparative studies will have a control/comparator group. Sometimes your question will not have a control group, such as in the case when you are interested in safety or handling characteristics of a new implant or procedure.
• Outcome(s) : What is the primary outcome of importance? Be specific and aim for the most important outcomes. Conceptual examples include patient reported outcomes such as pain, function, and quality-of-life as well as more clinical outcomes such as nonunion, major complications, repeat surgery, or death. It is best to use validated outcomes measures and measure clinically meaningful outcomes as well as harms. Future articles will discuss operationalizing and measuring your outcomes.

Resources for additional details about applying this to diagnostic and prognostic studies (PPOTS) can be found in the SMART Handbook for Spine Clinical Research, 16 and Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality Methods publications. 17 18

How Does This Help? Returning to Our Focus on Outcomes Reporting

Choosing to not evaluate or report on an outcome (particularly a harm) may reduce the credibility and applicability of your findings. The PICOTS is the start of your research game plan. Specifying and defining the outcomes to measure, how and when they will be measured a priori, and sticking to the plan assists you in avoiding ambiguity and misreported results. You are committing to measuring, analyzing, and reporting on those outcomes, including those related to harm, regardless of their statistical significance. This enhances the transparency and credibility of your study report and provides a sound basis for drawing objective conclusions.

Why Does It Matter?

Empirical evidence of outcome reporting bias (particularly related to treatment harms) over the past decade has led to a call for the registration of clinical trials and publication of protocols prior to trial completion to ensure transparency. 3 12 19 20 Increasingly, there is a call for researchers to publish study protocols of non-randomized studies. There is also increased interest in comparing the extent to which published results from a study are consistent with the study aims and the prespecified protocol. Study credibility is at stake, even if yours is not an RCT.

Regardless of study design, using the PICOTS/PPOTS framework as part of your prespecified protocol helps you stay on track as you plan and execute your study and is an important initial step toward transparency. It can form the basis of a checklist for ensuring that you have followed the basic game plan. Keeping it in mind as you write up results (positive as well as negative findings) will assist you in avoiding selective reporting and other reporting bias. This in turn enhances the credibility of your study within and outside your field.

Consider how reporting of your results may impact future studies that may build on yours, and how your data may be used in synthesis of data across studies such as in meta-analysis. The accuracy and completeness of your report may impact the credibility of the overall body of evidence.

The purpose of the Science in Spine articles in EBSJ is to assist surgeons in understanding research, facilitate critical thinking about research beyond “statistical significance,” and to help enhance the quality of research that they report. Decisions by clinicians, patients, and policy makers rest on the quality and integrity of reported research. To avoid biased study reporting:

• It is important to have a framework such as PICOTS/PPOTS for specific primary study features a priori .
• It is important to report on all study results/outcomes regardless of statistical significance.
• It is important to consider the potential for various types of reporting and publication bias when critically appraising studies and systematic reviews.

It is in the best interest of all to “mind the gap” and actively take steps to improve the value and reporting of research (regardless of study design or funding source) by following basic research steps to ensure quality.