Scholarly Sources
Scholarly sources are written by academic or industry professionals, for academics and industry professionals. They are research-based, advance their field of study, and typically contain technical jargon and complex theories. Scholarly resources are peer reviewed and published in academic journals or reputable book publishers. Scholarly sources are usually written for other professionals in that field, and assume the reader already knows quite a bit about the general subject area. Reading scholarly sources and research is a skill that takes time to build, and you may find that you need to use a dictionary or glossary to understand technical words in scholarly sources. Original research, systematic reviews, and meta-analysis are the types of scholarly sources that you will encounter.
What is a Scholarly Source? by Southern New Hampshire University
Explore Types of Sources with PrepSTEP (must be logged in)
Original Research
Also called empirical or primary reseach, original research contains brand new information that was studied by the author. Types of original research could include case studies, clinical trials, surveys, interviews, and more. All of these will have some sort of data that was collected directly by the person writing the article, whether that be quantitative (numerical) or qualitative (descriptive). It will also include the methodology behind collecting the data, as well as a summary of what that data means for the field.
Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Systematic reviews and meta-analyses both synthesize the results of multiple original research studies into one overarching theme or result. However, a meta-analysis has a larger focus on data and statistical analysis than a typical systematic review. These types of studies are great for finding consensus on complex topics. Because systematic reviews combine the results of many studies, checking their references list can also be a good way to find original research on your topic.
Learn more about systematic reviews, meta-analyses, and the differences between them with the following links:
- Study Design 101: Meta-Analysis
- Study Design 101: Systematic Review
- Meta-Analysis 101: What You Want to Know in the Era of Comparative Effectiveness
- Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses
Anatomy of a Research Paper
| Section | What it contains |
|---|---|
| Abstract | A general summary of what the researcher set out to study, and what the results were. It is the most helpful section to read when deciding whether to use a source |
| Introduction | The author explains what their research question is and how it is relevant to the field |
| Literature Review | The author discusses previous research on the topic that might have informed their hypothesis or helped them develop their research methods |
| Methods | This section describes when, where, and how the data was collected. If people were being studied, this section will described how the subjects were recruited and selected. If the article is a systematic review or meta-analysis, this will describe the author's criteria for which articles to include and how those articles were found |
| Results | Presents the data obtained |
| Discussion | The author interprets the results and provides an answer to the original research question |
| Conclusion | The conclusion is where the author summarizes the results of their research and how it is important to the field. The author will typically include reflections on the shortcomings of their study, recommendations for future research, and suggestions for how their research might be implemented. This is the second most important section to look at when deciding whether to use a source |
| References | Also called a bibliography or works cited section, here is where the author lists out all the sources they used in the literature review and to help interpret their data |
Detailed explanation of the parts of a research paper - from the Unviersity of Kansas
Non-Scholarly Sources
A non-scholarly source is something published outside of academia, like newspapers, blogs, book reviews, and magazines. It's important to remember that non-scholarly doesn't mean not credible - plenty of newspapers and magazines are credible sources! Non-scholarly simply refers to the fact that the resource didn't go through the rigorous peer review process that scholarly sources do, and is likely intended to be read by the general public instead of other researchers. For example, the Wall Street Journal and National Geographic are perfectly credible and reliable non-scholarly resources meant to be read by anyone. These sources are good to get a general overview of a topic, find more detailed sources on the topic (a credible source will always cite their information), or get the most up-to-date news on a subject. If you're writing about something very recent, there likely has not been time for a scholarly source to be written, go through the peer review process, and be published.
While non-scholarly resources have the advantage of being able to publish news and information almost as soon as it happens, this comes at the cost of not being fact-checked or reviewed for bias. Use the Media Bias Chart on our newspapers page to check if your news source of choice is credible and reliable before citing it in a paper.
Primary vs. Secondary Historical Sources
A primary source is something that was written or recorded by someone who was part of the event being researched. This could include manuscripts, letters, photographs, newspapers, artefacts, memoirs, and anything else created by people who lived in the time period. Primary sources don’t necessarily have to be created during the time period being researched - the author could also publish a memoir or autobiography of their experiences years or decades later. For example, the Diary of Anne Frank is a primary source for WW2 and the Holocaust, because it was created during the Holocaust. Elie Weisel’s memoir “Night” is also considered a primary source even though it was created years after WW2 ended, because it was written by someone who directly experienced living through the Holocaust in Germany.
A secondary source is one step removed from a primary source. It is something that was written based on the accounts of primary sources, but not by someone who was actually there. For example, a modern history textbook of WW2 is a secondary source because the author was not alive during the time WW2 was taking place. Secondary sources are able to provide the reader with a much wider view of the time period and incorporate things happening during the time period that a primary source author did not know. For example, a secondary source like this article from the US Holocaust Memorial Museum, is able to provide readers with context not included in the Diary of Anne Frank, like what happened after the Franks were captured and what was happening around Europe at the time.
Primary sources offer unique insight into what it was like to live during the time period being studied and can humanize events that seem far-removed from current life, whereas secondary sources offer historical context to the information presented in primary sources and can help interpret what the original author was saying.