Part of the main activity of H817 Week 1 was to ensure we learn to recognize and source good resources going forward. The PROMPT criteria are, in my mind, quite obvious! I can imagine them being very useful in undergraduate studies but post graduate? Does this stuff really need to be spelled out?
On reflection (that is, after all, the point!) I can see that I have utilized a few short cuts to avoid falling foul of the criteria - principally I get my resources from the OU library and I filter for peer reviewed journals, and give algorithm preference to newer material.
Peer review and simple dating must take care of the OMPT part of the criteria. My own preference may deal with the initial P although in my experience the peer-reviewed journals tend to look and read similarly to each other. The R is the challenge - partly because the huge number of resources available can muddy the waters and require increasingly specific and detailed search criteria. Secondly is my temptation to look for things which intrigue me rather than resources which will help me answer the question!
|Given the age, condition and format of the information, is it as readable as it could be? Is the information clearly laid out and easy to navigate? Is it obscured by busy designs, animations or images?
|Does the information you have found meet the need you have identified? Does it make sense in the particular context in which you are working?
|Does the author or owner of the information make clear their own and/or alternative views?
|Is it clear how the research was carried out? Were the methods appropriate? Does it permit the author to come to a sound and reasonable conclusion? Note that these criteria are particularly important when evaluating scientific and historical information.
|Can the author or source of the information be considered a reliable authority on the subject?
When was the information produced? Is it recent or dated? Is it obsolete? Does the age of the information matter on this occasion?