There are several evaluation models you can use, the most famous is CRAAP, which stands for:
- Currency: the timeliness of the information (this matters for some topics more than others)
- Relevance: How the information fits your needs
- Authority: The source of the information
- Accuracy: Reliability and correctness of the information
- Purpose: The reason the information exists
When you are evaluating scholarly, peer-reviewed resources, the quality of the information should be good, and the purpose should be to inform (they're not trying to sell you anything). In this case, you're often focusing on currency (if it's relevant) and relevance in particular.
You will inevitably read more than you cite in a good research paper, but taking a moment to explicitly evaluate the evidence that a source is worth more of your time can save you some time. Think of it like speed dating:
- What in the article title makes you think it's worth more of your time?
- What in the abstract (summary) makes you think it's worth more of your time?
- Looking at the first few paragraphs (or the last few) of the full text, what makes you think it's worth reading the whole article?
For each of these, make sure your reasons for spending more time with each source is rooted in your topic and the information you need to complete the assignment.