IB Source Evaluation Guide | How to Select and Assess References for EE & IA
Choosing the right sources for your EE or IA can make or break your argument. Mastering source evaluation frameworks helps you select credible references and demonstrate the research skills assessors look for.
Finding credible sources is one of the most underrated skills in the IB Diploma Programme—and one of the most consequential. A poorly sourced Extended Essay (EE) or Internal Assessment (IA) can undermine months of work, even when the argument itself is sound. The good news: once you understand what evaluators are actually looking for, source selection becomes a systematic, learnable process rather than a guessing game.
This guide walks you through proven evaluation frameworks, subject-specific considerations, and practical habits that will serve you across every piece of IB research you produce.
What Makes a Source "Reliable" in an IB Context?
Reliability is not the same as familiarity. A source you encounter often—say, a popular science magazine or a well-known newspaper—is not automatically credible for academic purposes. In the IB, reliability means that a source has been produced through a verifiable process, by someone with identifiable expertise, and that its claims can be checked against other evidence.
At the most fundamental level, IB assessors and supervisors look for sources that:
- Come from authors or institutions with relevant qualifications
- Have undergone some form of editorial or peer review
- Are transparent about methodology, data, or reasoning
- Can be dated and placed in a scholarly conversation
This matters because both the EE and IA ask you not just to report information, but to use evidence to construct and defend an argument. Weak sources make weak arguments, regardless of how well-written the surrounding prose is.
How Do Evaluation Frameworks Like CRAAP and SLACC Actually Work?
Two frameworks are particularly useful for IB students: CRAAP (Currency, Relevance, Authority, Accuracy, Purpose) and SLACC (Source, List, Author, Currency, Coverage). Rather than memorising acronyms, treat these as checklists of questions to ask about every source you consider.
CRAAP in Practice
| Criterion | The Question to Ask | Why It Matters for IB |
|---|---|---|
| Currency | When was this published or last updated? | Science and economics move fast; a decade-old study may be superseded |
| Relevance | Does this directly address my research question? | Tangential sources pad word counts without strengthening arguments |
| Authority | Who wrote this, and what are their credentials? | Assessors expect you to know who is making a claim, not just what |
| Accuracy | Are claims supported by evidence? Are sources cited? | Self-referential or unsourced claims add no academic value |
| Purpose | Why was this created—to inform, persuade, sell, or advocate? | Purpose shapes bias; you need to account for it in your analysis |
SLACC as a Complement
SLACC overlaps considerably with CRAAP but adds a useful emphasis on Coverage—asking whether the source treats your topic in sufficient depth, or only skims the surface. For an EE or IA, a source that mentions your topic in passing is rarely useful as a primary reference; you need sources that engage with the issue substantively.
Which Types of Sources Rank Highest—and Why?
Not all sources are equal, and knowing the general hierarchy saves you from building an argument on unstable ground. That said, the right source type depends heavily on your subject and research question.
General Source Hierarchy
| Tier | Source Type | Typical Use |
|---|---|---|
| Highest | Peer-reviewed journal articles | Core evidence for scientific, economic, and social science claims |
| High | Academic books / edited volumes | Theoretical frameworks, historical synthesis, humanities analysis |
| High | Official government and intergovernmental data | Statistics, policy, public health, economics IA |
| Medium | Reputable think tanks and research institutes | Policy analysis, applied economics, social commentary |
| Medium | Quality journalism (broadsheet / wire agencies) | Current events, context; never as sole evidence |
| Lower | General websites, blogs, encyclopaedias | Background orientation only; do not cite as evidence |
Subject-Specific Considerations
Sciences (Biology, Chemistry, Physics) Peer-reviewed studies published in indexed journals are the gold standard. When using experimental data from a study, note the sample size, methodology, and whether findings have been replicated. For your own IA, the methodology you follow should itself be traceable to a published or textbook source.
If you're working through a Biology or Chemistry IA, the IB Biology HL guide and IB Chemistry HL guide both outline what kinds of evidence align with the subject's internal assessment criteria.
Humanities (History, English A, Philosophy) Primary sources—original texts, archival documents, speeches, literary works—often carry more weight than secondary commentary. Secondary scholarly sources help you position your interpretation within an academic conversation, but the primary text is usually central.
Economics and Social Sciences A combination of peer-reviewed economic research, institutional reports (IMF, World Bank, OECD, national statistics offices), and quality journalism creates a credible source base. For the Economics IA in particular, real-world articles trigger your analysis, so the publication quality of your stimulus article matters. See the IB Economics HL guide for more on how source selection connects to IA structure.
How Should You Evaluate Websites and Digital Sources?
Digital sources are unavoidable and, used well, entirely legitimate. The challenge is that the internet offers no automatic quality filter. Apply additional scrutiny using the following checks:
The Website Evaluation Checklist
- Authorship transparency: Is there a named author with stated credentials, or is content attributed only to an unnamed editorial team?
- Institutional backing: Is the site run by a university, government body, or established research organisation?
- Publication and update dates: Undated content is a red flag, especially for topics where evidence evolves.
- Citation practices: Does the page reference its own sources, allowing you to trace claims upstream?
- Editorial standards: Is there a stated editorial or peer-review process?
- Domain and funding: Who funds the organisation? Funding source can reveal ideological or commercial bias.
Preprints and Open Access
Academic preprints (e.g., papers posted to arXiv or SSRN before peer review) are increasingly common. These can be valuable for cutting-edge research, but flag them clearly: they have not been peer-reviewed and their conclusions may change. If you use a preprint, check whether a peer-reviewed version has since been published.
How Do You Apply Source Evaluation to the EE and IA Specifically?
Source quality is not a box to check—it is woven into how your EE and IA are assessed. The assessment criteria across both components reward students who engage critically with evidence, not just those who compile long bibliographies.
For the Extended Essay
The EE expects you to engage with a range of source types appropriate to your subject, and to demonstrate that you understand the significance and limitations of what you are citing. This means:
- Choosing sources that directly address your research question, not just your broad topic
- Noting, at least implicitly, what each source contributes and where it might be limited
- Avoiding over-reliance on a single source or source type
- Ensuring all claims that are not common knowledge or your own analysis are supported
A well-sourced EE also makes supervisor conversations more productive. When you bring sources to your supervision sessions, your supervisor can redirect you efficiently. The IB Extended Essay guide provides a fuller walkthrough of how to structure and present your research.
For the IA
Source requirements in the IA vary by subject, but the principle is consistent: your methodology, data, and theoretical framing should all be traceable to credible sources. In sciences, this often means citing the experimental protocol or published literature your investigation builds on. In humanities and social sciences, it means grounding your analysis in recognised theoretical frameworks and primary evidence.
The IB IA guide covers assessment criteria across subjects and can help you understand where sourcing decisions directly affect your marks.
What Are the Most Common Source Mistakes IB Students Make?
Understanding the pitfalls is just as important as knowing best practice.
1. Mistaking accessibility for quality The easiest source to find is rarely the best one. Students often default to the first search result rather than going deeper into academic databases.
2. Citing secondary sources without checking the primary If a journal article cites a famous study, and you cite the journal article's summary of that study, you are one step removed from the actual evidence. Go to the original wherever possible.
3. Over-relying on a single source A single study or report—however prestigious—does not establish consensus. Show that your understanding is built on a range of evidence.
4. Ignoring publication date without reason Some fields move quickly; others are more stable. In fast-moving areas (technology, current economics, public health), a source from several years ago may be outdated. In classical literary criticism or historical analysis, older scholarship can be foundational. Know which situation you are in.
5. Treating citation style as an afterthought Inconsistent or incomplete citations reduce the credibility of the entire document. Use a reference manager from the start and follow the citation style your school requires—then double-check against your subject guide's expectations.
How Do You Find High-Quality Sources Efficiently?
Research does not require spending hours wandering through databases. A focused approach yields better results faster.
Recommended Search Strategies
- Start with Google Scholar for an overview of the academic landscape on your topic, then follow citation trails—look at what a useful paper cites, and what has cited it since.
- Use subject-specific databases: PubMed for life sciences, JSTOR for humanities and social sciences, ERIC for education, SSRN for economics and social science working papers.
- Ask your school librarian: Many IB schools have database subscriptions (Britannica Academic, ProQuest, EBSCOhost) that give you full-text access to peer-reviewed journals for free.
- Check institutional repositories: Many universities publish faculty research in open repositories—these are peer-reviewed and freely accessible.
- Look at government and intergovernmental portals: WHO, OECD, national statistics offices, and similar bodies publish data and reports that are highly credible for economics and social science topics.
A Quick Reference: Source Evaluation at a Glance
| Question | What to Look For |
|---|---|
| Who created this? | Named author with relevant credentials or institutional affiliation |
| When was it published? | Date visible; recency appropriate to the field |
| Why was it created? | To inform or report, not primarily to advocate or sell |
| How was it reviewed? | Peer review, editorial standards, or institutional accountability |
| What evidence does it use? | Cited data, methodology, traceable claims |
| How does it fit my question? | Directly relevant, not merely tangential |
| What are its limits? | Scope, sample, context, potential bias |
Getting source evaluation right is one of those skills that quietly distinguishes strong IB work from average submissions. It does not require reading everything—it requires reading selectively and critically. If you want to discuss your specific EE or IA research strategy with someone who has been through the process, Quick IB's one-to-one mentors can help you develop a source base that genuinely supports your argument.