Skip to Main Content
mccbanner Middlesex Community College Home Page Current Students Future Students Programs & Courses Paying for College Workforce & Training” title= Alumni Library My MCC Apply Registration Directory Give to MCC About Contact Us
Library Homepage Course Guides English Course Guides Subject Guides Faculty Guides MCC Homepage

Research & Writing: Types of Sources

Source Audience

Sources are always written with a given audience in mind. If a source is written for experts, it may be more reputable, but it also may be more difficult for non-experts to understand. On the other hand, sources written for a general audience may be more readable, but less rigorous and nuanced. 

While the target audience for a resource may not always be clear cut, knowing the type of resource you are looking for can help you better find those resources. Some search engines will allow you to filter by "scholarly articles" or "trade publications." You can also look at the description of the book or abstract of the article to quickly determine the audience for the source, and whether it might meet your needs.

How do I know what type of source I need?

The type of resource you're looking for will depend on what you're doing with it! If you're looking for curricular resources, best practices, practical strategies and advice, or classroom resources, you'll be more successful if you're browsing popular or professional publications. These include resources like educator blogs, newspapers, magazines, and practitioner journals. Resources like EdWeek or Curriculum Resource Center are great options for these types of resources!

If you're working on a research paper, literary review, data narrative, or other scholarly work, you're going to be looking primarily for scholarly academic literature to support your argument. You'll want to filter your results for peer-reviewed and scholarly work to cite in your paper - you might be able to find useful resources in practitioner journals, but as a general rule you shouldn't be citing popular sources.

Pros and Cons of Different Source Types

Pro:

  • Peer-reviewed: experts read and comment on quality of article prior to publication
  • Authority is clear
  • Articles written by the experts themselves, not by outside journalists
  • Almost always include citations
  • Often affiliated with professional organizations
  • Less influenced by ad revenue than magazines and newspapers

Con:

  • Not cheap or easy to find outside of academia
  • Publish articles less frequently than newspapers or websites = not suitable for breaking news
  • Written for experts in the field; can be too technical for a newcomer or casual reader

Intended Audience: Scholars, researchers, professionals, and university students in particular field

Watch for: "Predatory" or "pay to publish" online journals

Pro:

  • Current information
  • Specialized articles related to a particular discipline or profession (including context and analysis)

Con:

  • Sources not always cited
  • Articles vary between short and easy to lengthy and highly specific

Intended Audience: Professional organizations or professionals/scholars with similar interests

What For / Consider: Has characteristics in common with both popular magazines and scholarly journals

Pro:

  • More space than newspapers, magazines, or journals results in greater depth of information
  • Often include tables of contents and indexes for easy navigation and discovery
  • Often include footnotes, endnotes, and/or bibliographies
  • Most books undergo some sort of editorial process (usually writer - editor)

Con:

  • Take more time to read than other sources
  • Can take months or even years to publish
  • Many books do not undergo peer review
  • Rise in self-publishing means more unedited or poorly edited books reach publication

Intended Audience: Varies (general audience through scholars)

What For / Consider: Information may be dated due to the time it takes to publish a book.

Pro:

  • More space than newspapers = longer articles, more depth
  • Published faster than books
  • Articles undergo an editorial process involving many people: reporter to editor to copy editor
  • Authority is clear for most articles

Con:

  • Less space than books
  • Publish articles less frequently than websites or newspapers; information can be outdated by press time
  • Reporters often aren’t experts and are writing for general audiences, not experts
  • Articles are not peer-reviewed
  • Rely on advertising and subscription revenue

Intended Audience: General audience or those with a specific, recreational interest (e.g. sports, fashion, science, etc.)

What For / Consider: Potential editorial bias

Pro:

  • Published more frequently than magazines, journals, or books
  • Articles undergo an editorial process involving many people -- reporter to editor to copy editor
  • Authority is clear for most articles

Con:

  • Space limitations = shorter articles, less detail
  • Publish articles less frequently than websites; information can be outdated by press time
  • Reporters often aren’t experts and are writing for general audiences, not experts
  • Articles are not peer-reviewed
  • Rely on advertising and subscription revenue

Intended Audience: General audience

What For / Consider: Contains both fact-based reporting and editorial content (opinions). Opinions may be biased.

Pro:

  • Articles easy to find using the site’s search field or Google
  • Articles about current events updated frequently
  • Best articles are edited by a crowd of interested and informed writers
  • Useful for background information

Con:

  • Editorial standards set by community; minimal oversight from Wikipedia staff
  • Articles on obscure topics can go untouched for months
  • Non-experts have just as much editorial control as experts
  • Worst articles are poorly written and poorly sourced
  • Instructors do not allow use as a source

Intended Audience: General audience

What For / Consider: Use the reference list to find other sources that can used

Pro:

  • Easy to find through Google
  • Might be updated quickly and frequently
  • Direct access to person / author
  • Access to scholarly work in progress
  • Expansion of published work

Con:

  • No editorial standards or oversight = author can express opinions, biases, and incorrect information with few consequences
  • May not include information about the author, date of publication, or sources cited (if any)
  • Vary widely in quality and reliability

Intended Audience: General audience through scholars depending on the source

What For / Consider: High potential for bias. Usually informal.

Pro:

  • Easy to find using Google
  • Often have higher editorial and design standards than personal websites
  • Often managed by professional writers and designers
  • Government websites are designed to inform citizens

Con:

  • Commercial interests may come first
  • Articles are written for general audiences
  • Bylines often missing and works rarely cited

Intended Audience: General audience

What For / Consider: Governmental and educational websites have higher credibility than commercial websites

 

Types of Sources Comparison Chart​​​​​​undefined

Popular vs. Trade vs. Scholarly Sources