Scholarly (peer-reviewed) academic sources publish primary research done by professional researchers and scholars in specialized fields, as well as reviews of that research by other specialists in the same field.

For example, the Journal of Computer and System Sciences publishes original research papers in computer science and related subjects in system science; the International Journal of Robotics and Animation is one of the most highly ranked journals in the field.

Specialized encyclopedias, handbooks, and dictionaries can provide useful terminology and background information.

For example, the Kirk-Othmer Encyclopedia of Chemical Technology is a widely recognized authoritative source.

You may cite Wikipedia or dictionary.com in a technical report, but be sure to compare the information to other reliable sources before use.

Books written by specialists in a given field usually contain a References section that can be very helpful in providing in-depth context for your ideas.

For example, Designing Engineers by Susan McCahan et al. has an excellent chapter on effective teamwork

Reputable trade magazines contain articles relating to current issues and innovations; therefore, they can be useful in determining what is “cutting edge,” or finding out what current issues or controversies are affecting the industry.

Examples include Computerworld, Wired, and Popular Mechanics.

Newspaper articles and media releases offer a sense of what journalists and people in industry think the general public should know about a given topic. Journalists report on current events and recent innovations; more in-depth “investigative journalism” explores a current issue in greater detail. Newspapers also contain editorial sections that provide personal opinions on these events and issues.

Choose well-known, reputable newspapers such as The New York Times.

Commercial websites are generally intended to “sell,” so you have to select information carefully, but these websites can give you insights into a company’s “mission statement,” organization, strategic plan, current or planned projects, archived information, white papers, technical reports, product details, costs estimates, etc.

A vast array of .org sites can be very helpful in supplying data and information. These are often public service sites and are designed to share information with the public.

Government departments often publish reports and other documents that can be very helpful in determining public policy, regulations, and guidelines that should be followed.

Statistics Canada, for example, publishes a wide range of data.

University websites also offer a wide array of non-academic information, such as strategic plans, facilities information, etc.

You may have to distinguish your innovative idea from previously patented ideas; you can look these up and get detailed information on patented or patent-pending ideas.

Public consultation meetings and representatives from industry and government speak to various audiences about current issues and proposed projects. These can be live presentations or video presentations available on YouTube or TED talks.

Can you think of some more? (Radio programs, podcasts, social media, etc.)

Who are the researchers/authors/creators? Who is their intended audience?

What are their credentials/qualifications? What else has this author written?

Is this research funded? By whom? Who benefits?

Who has intellectual ownership of this idea? How do I cite it?

Where is this source published? What kind of publication is it?

Authoritative Sources: written by experts for a specialized audience, published in peer-reviewed journals or by respected publishers, and containing well-supported, evidence-based arguments.

Popular Sources: written for a general (or possibly niche) public audience, often in an informal or journalistic style, published in newspapers, magazines, and websites with a purpose of entertaining or promoting a product; evidence is often “soft” rather than hard.

Methodology

What is the methodology of their study? Or how has evidence been collected?

Is the methodology sound? Can you find obvious flaws?

What is its scope? Does it apply to your project? How?

How recent and relevant is it? What is the publication date or last update?

Data

Is there sufficient data here to support their claims or hypotheses?

Do they offer quantitative and/or qualitative data?

Are visual representations of the data misleading or distorted in some way?

Why has this author presented this information to this audience?

Why am I using this source?

Will using this source bolster my credibility or undermine it?

Am I “cherry-picking” –  using inadequate or unrepresentative data that only supports my position, while ignoring substantial amount of data that contradicts it?

Could “cognitive bias” be at work here? Have I only consulted the kinds of sources I know will support my idea? Have I failed to consider alternative kinds of sources?

Am I representing the data I have collected accurately?

Are the data statistically relevant or significant?

Argument from popularity – “Everyone else is doing it, so we should too!”

Using insufficient data to come to a general conclusion.

E.g., An Australian stole my wallet; therefore, all Australians are thieves!

Using data from a particular subset and generalizing to a larger set that may not share similar characteristics.

E.g.,  giving a survey to only female students under 20 and generalizing results to all students.

“Either/or fallacy” – presenting only two options when there are usually more possibilities to consider

E.g.,  You’re either with us or against us.

Claiming that a single cause will lead, eventually, to exaggerated catastrophic results.

Using language loaded with emotional appeal and either positive or negative connotation to manipulate the reader

Comparing your idea to another that is familiar to the audience but which may not have sufficient similarity to make an accurate comparison

E.g., Governing a country is like running a business.

“After this; therefore, because of this”

E.g., A happened, then B happened; therefore, A caused B.

Just because one thing happened first, does not necessarily mean that the first thing caused the second thing.

Circular argument – assuming the truth of the conclusion by its premises.

E.g.,  I never lie; therefore, I must be telling the truth.

An attack on the person making an argument does not really invalidate that person’s argument. It might make them seem a bit less credible, but it does not dismantle the actual argument or invalidate the data.

Restating the opposing idea in an inaccurately absurd or simplistic manner to more easily refute or undermine it.

There are many more… can you think of some?

For a bit of fun, check out Spurious Correlations.