Book

Cary, J. W., Linz, J. E., & Bhatnagar, D. (2000). Microbial foodborne diseases : Mechanisms of
pathogenesis and toxin synthesis. Lancaster, Pa: Technomic Pub. Co., Inc.

This book would be a great source to use in my research. It provides an in-depth look at
many different types of food borne pathogens. It even has a whole section on E. coli, which is the
bacteria I am researching on the most. Not only does it provide analyses of the types of E. coli,
but it also gives factors pertaining to E. coli in general (such as clinical features and
pathogenesis). This book is understandable to someone with a science background. In other
words, since I am a biology major, I am able to understand the content of the book. There arent
giant scientific words that only professionals would understand, so the intended audience is
probably educated people, but not professionals. There does not appear to be any bias. It states
facts from research. As far as being up to date, Id say that it is okay. 2000 was not too long ago,
but many advances in science have come about since then. The authors definitely have the
credibilityall of them have received their Ph. Ds. The contributors are experts in their field,
working in places such as the Division of Molecular Virology at Baylor College of Medicine.
The references listed tell me that the authors went to great length to come up with lots of
evidence and fact to compile and back their book. Personally, I dont believe the place of
publication has anything to do with the relevancy of this book other than the fact that the
publisher is well established. This book will definitely help me answer many of the questions in
my research, and ultimately my research statement. On a scale of 1-10, I would give this book no
less than an 8. It is a great source to have.

Scholarly Article
Swartz, M. N. (2002). Human diseases caused by foodborne pathogens of animal origin. Clinical
Infectious Disease, 34(3), S111-S122. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/4463823

Again, this article is directed towards an educated audience. This audience is interested in
learning about how foodborne pathogens are linked to animals. This article may be of use to my
research, but it will not provide a great amount of information for my research. Because this
article discusses foodborne pathogens and their connections to animal origins. Part of my
research involves the origin of these pathogens, so it does pertain to my topic. However, this
article is a broad spectrum of many different pathogens, and I am focusing on E. coli. Though
this article is broad, it does contain a lot of evidence backed by research. There are multiple
charts containing information with credits given to others. This article is only a fraction more
recent than my last source (it was published in 2002). Again, many scientific discoveries have
been made since then, but it is also important to keep in mind that it takes a very long time to
compile the evidence. Id say that this author definitely knows what he is talking about. He
comes from a huge hospital in a prominent town (Massachusetts General Hospital). Most of the
data is regarding diagnoses and clinical cases. Id say the fact that this article was published by
the Oxford University Press, that alone would give it credibility. Such a widely known and
highly rated university would not publish an article that had no credible sources. This article was
the most accessed and cited on the JSTOR database, so that gives me a good idea that it contains

valuable and accurate information, and also that people respect this mans work. I will probably
use this article in my research since it is solely about one of my topics. On a scale of 1-10, Id
give this article an 8.

Scholarly Article
Simjee, S. (2008). Foodborne diseases. Clinical Infectious Diseases, 46(12), 1942-1943.
Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/40307557

The primary audience for this source would be anyone looking into reading the article by
Shabbir Simjee. While this article is about foodborne pathogens, it really is only reviewing the
article, not giving pertinent information. Also, it uses a lot of big scientific words, so it is most
likely for professionals, or highly educated people looking into the topic. There could be a little
bias towards the article, but not much. It is mostly summarizing the main points of this article.
Some statements, like The chapters are authored by a multitude of reputable authors could be
trying to persuade the reader that this article is credible, and it could be, but none of the authors
are listed to check. There are not any references listed other than the woman who reviewed the
article. Her credentials are listed, and she seems like she has the authority to review the article,
considering she works for the Center for Disease Control and Prevention. This article was
reviewed in 2008, so compared to the others, it is fairly up to date. So, if the review is positive,
the article must still contain relevant information. Again, it was published by the Oxford
University Press, so it definitely has great information. This article was also accessed a fair
amount of times, so Id said that is also a good sign that it is reputable. I, however, will not be
using this article in my research because it is only a review article and contains no information
that I would be able to use. On a scale of 1-10, I would rate this a 3 because it does not give any
usable information, only a summary. However, I dont doubt that it is a great review on its own.

Magazine Article
OConnell, Jeff. (2007, March). De-bug your dinner. Mens Health, March 2007, 97-98.

The primary audience of this article is the general audience of Mens Health subscribers. Id say
for that particular audience, its pretty spot on as far as their needs. The text is basic but
informational. However, it is a bit too basic for my research. The content of this article semiapplies to my subject matter. It discusses how to prevent foodborne pathogens, which is one of
my subcategories. Id say this is pretty cut and dry as far as biases or faulty reasoning. Its all
quantitative information, cited by a few seemingly credible sources. There really arent any notes
or citations, other than names of people or universities who gave the information. This article,
like the others, is not the most recent. While the information could still be valuable, there is no
reference list, so you could not tell if the information came from credible sources. I do not
believe that the author has the authority to speak on the subject. There is no information linking
him to anything remotely related to foodborne pathogens. However, the information presented in
the article was cited and used from various sources, though even those are questionable. I think
that the publisher does not have any affect on the article itself, considering it is a stock article for
that type of magazine. As far as I could tell, this article has not been cited in other publications at

all, and there have only been 3 reviews on it. I probably wouldnt use this in my research, but it
could be useful to get starting information on how to prevent foodborne pathogens from
contaminating food. On a scale of 1-10, based on my needs, I would give this article a 2. It has
information that I could use, but nothing is cited nor am I able to search the information to check
either.

Online Article
(2008, May 13). Start at the store: 7 ways to prevent foodborne illness. Retrieved from http://
www.fda.gov/ForConsumers/ConsumerUpdates/ucm094535.htm

The primary audience for this source is the general public. It is easy to understand and follow,
and provides useful information for the everyday person. This article definitely could apply to
my research. It presents 7 ways to prevent foodborne illness. Again, that is one of the
subcategories. There could possibly be some bias, but not much. This article is from the FDA, so
while they do know what they are talking about. There arent any citations for this article other
than the fact that it is from the FDA. I think that they themselves have enough credibility to not
cite, but they could state how they discovered that information. This is by far the most current
article I have found. While it was originally written in 2008, the page was last updated on
October 14th of this year, meaning the information is still very accurate. No author is listed, but
the FDA is credibly and does have the authority because they are solely focused on food and
everything regarding it, such as safety and health hazards. I will probably end up using this
website in my research as the basis for ways to prevent foodborne pathogens. It gives pretty
basic information to start with, and if I could find research to back it that would be even better.
On a scale of 1-10, I would give this article a 7. It is very credible and provides pertinent
information, however it does not give out any details on how they found these results.