DD11HW3

Berghoff, Federkeil. "The Guidelines Project : Providing Instruments for Evaluating Development                                          Research." Evaluating Research Teams. Guidelines Project, 2009. Web. 13 Nov. 2016.

Authorship: In terms of authorship, this source is lacking marginally. I do not recognize the name of the author, and the source does not describe the author's credentials. However, I am able to find the information of this author easily by doing a little research as the author has extensive credentials. The source is valid, but it does not put much effort into its Authorship.

Publisher: The publisher is incredibly reputable; the publisher is actually responsible for numerous studies being conducted on work space ethic and group work improvement. There is an entire "movement" of which the publisher is responsible which attacks work space issues and attempts to resolve them in the best way possible. The author is incredibly scholarly and the publisher is scholarly as well as the publisher is responsible for many studies in the field of psychology. The editorial board members are not "well known," however after looking through their credentials it is obvious that they are a worthy source for the information I need. I don't believe that there are special interests involved in the production of this study as the study itself is incredibly neutral in opinion. I truly believe that the publisher is attempting to create an informative piece that can be used by many.

Knowledge of the Literature: The author does seem to be incredibly knowledgable about the material and the topic. The author writes extensively about the issues being covered in the journal and is very reliable for the material being discussed. This is a scholarly, peer reviewed journal, thus there is an extensive bibliography available in the end of the study. There are also notes  throughout the document that annotate the necessary information that is not discussed in the actual journal.

Accuracy and Verifiability of the Information: the information is not based on assumptions, most of the information is backed up by actual studies being conducted in the field. In addition, the author does describe the methods and theories that are in place to get the information being discussed. There is minimal "reasoning" placed in this journal, however the author seems to use sound reasoning wherever needed. The author does not, however, explain limitations of the information, and rather just gives us every reason to believe his information. I do not believe that this detracts from the overall fluidity of the information.

Timeliness: The document is incredibly recent, it was published in 2009; I do not believe that the work dynamic has changed drastically since 2009; everything seems to be consistent. The document was not published recently, but the data is still prevalent today.

kKno