# data[].attributes.body
That peer-reviewed journal articles are the ONLY authoritative sources

# data[].attributes.body
students are completely naive about research

# data[].attributes.body
Health sciences should ONLY use research published in the last 5 years

# data[].attributes.body
Students think everything is a website. They don't even recognize "medium"

# data[].attributes.body
is completely unreliable

# data[].attributes.body
.com is "bad" .org is "good"

# data[].attributes.headline
That government sources are always credible--we've seen omissions of facts for political reasons. 

# data[].attributes.subject
That government sources are always credible--we've seen omissions of facts for political reasons. 

# data[].attributes.body
That .org websites are somehow more reliable than .com ones.

# data[].attributes.body
That a print resource is automatically better than a born-digital source.

# data[].attributes.body
Wikipedia can't be used as a starting point for research

# data[].attributes.body
some domains better than others

# data[].attributes.body
In order to prove your point, you have to use a certain number of scholarly (only) resources.

# data[].attributes.body
Popular articles are unhelpful

# data[].attributes.body
Many instructors tell their students to use only peer-reviewed articles even when their topics are not suited to scholarly sources.

# data[].attributes.body
That you should never look at Wikipedia! I've done some great research by starting with Wikipedia for the broad picture

# data[].attributes.body
There are a lot of good resources outside the library's subscription databases. Students need to know how to find them.

# data[].attributes.body
Thinking about who is considered an authority especially when it comes to things like Indigenous knowledge and other ways of knowing

# data[].attributes.body
".org or .gov is more reliable than .com"

# data[].attributes.body
.edu is okay, .com is bad, etc.

# data[].attributes.body
"You must find: one article, one book, etc."

# data[].attributes.body
Wikipedia should never be utilized for research (great for looking at citations, beginning research, etc.)

# data[].attributes.headline
It's always best to use the most recently-published sources on any topic.

# data[].attributes.subject
It's always best to use the most recently-published sources on any topic.

# data[].attributes.headline
Scholalrly articles are  always reliable and trustworthy

# data[].attributes.subject
Scholalrly articles are  always reliable and trustworthy

# data[].attributes.headline
primary resources better than secondary sources 

# data[].attributes.subject
primary resources better than secondary sources 

# data[].attributes.headline
OA Resources are not as good as traditionally published sources

# data[].attributes.subject
OA Resources are not as good as traditionally published sources

# data[].attributes.body
There is a belief that OA sources are not as authoritative; in reality the publisher's methods don't matter.

# data[].attributes.body
Lived experience has no place in the scholarly conversation

# data[].attributes.body
Anything from the library is credible

# data[].attributes.body
That there are criteria that carte blanche determine the 'goodness' of a source

# data[].attributes.body
Don't use google scholar

# data[].attributes.body
Sources can't be non-written.

# data[].attributes.body
Teaching the ups and downs (emotions) of research. Has intersections with equity issues

# data[].attributes.headline
Only keyword searches yield good results

# data[].attributes.subject
Only keyword searches yield good results

# data[].attributes.headline
if you can't find information it must be a bad topic; research takes time and money, and is not accessible to everyone, the publishing process can gate-keep

# data[].attributes.subject
if you can't find information it must be a bad topic; research takes time and money, and is not accessible to everyone, the publishing process can gate-keep

# data[].attributes.body
Newspapers seem to be ignored in research though it is a great primary document

# data[].attributes.body
No resources published more than twenty years ago are useful or viable for research purposes.

# data[].attributes.body
Recognizing the publisher/author or the process how the info is retrieved and presented -Io

# data[].attributes.body
Students are sometimes not allowed to use research done in other countries as it is seen as irrelevant or of lesser quality.

# data[].attributes.body
Research & publication take time. Not everything has been studied, especially very recent things!

# data[].attributes.body
Highly cited = high quality

# data[].attributes.body
Newspapers are unreliable as they are not scholarly sources.

# data[].attributes.headline
quantitative research is "better" than qualitative research

# data[].attributes.subject
quantitative research is "better" than qualitative research

# data[].attributes.body
It shocks me how many professors ask their students to have a thesis statement before they do any research.

# data[].attributes.body
Sources are useful and appropriate for your research or not.

# data[].attributes.headline
Only scholarly articles are "good enough"

# data[].attributes.subject
Only scholarly articles are "good enough"

# data[].attributes.body
Sometimes a website or online content might be more applicable

# data[].attributes.headline
All books are credible, scholarly, etc. in the library

# data[].attributes.subject
All books are credible, scholarly, etc. in the library

# data[].attributes.headline
That librarians can help you find the right answer (as compared to Google)

# data[].attributes.subject
That librarians can help you find the right answer (as compared to Google)

# data[].attributes.body
Good research may lead to more questions that answers. There may never be a right answer! Librarians do not always have the magic sauce, and Google is not a bad place as long as you know its limitations and how to use it correctly (and ask the right questions).

# data[].attributes.body
I still have professors who ask me to "teach students to find articles in xyz journals" and provide a list of 3-5 titles. Who still does research this way?

# data[].attributes.headline
Snobbery toward certain sources, especially Wikipedia.

# data[].attributes.subject
Snobbery toward certain sources, especially Wikipedia.

# data[].attributes.headline
Your search results will always match someone else's. 

# data[].attributes.subject
Your search results will always match someone else's. 

# data[].attributes.body
Even if every student uses the same search prompt in the same database, not every person is going to have the same materials listed in the search; ie "search this term, it's always the first article that pops up". No. Just no. That's not how algorithms work.

# data[].attributes.body
can be misleading and may not accurately reflect the quality or a journal, so not the best method to evaluate sources