Table 4.

Analysis of Students’ Justifications for their Evaluations of the Publication Venue

Quality of justification	Mother’s blog	Newspaper's website	Company website	Research center’s website
Level 3: Elaborated, relevant justification (3 points)	"In a blog, anyone can write anything. Nobody demands to check the source" (Student 1G4)	"Journalists’ texts are probably reviewed before publication, but there is still a possibility of some factual errors" (Student 2QT)	"In Finland, customers can not be lied to about benefits or harms of products, but one can, to some extent, leave something unsaid" (Student 3ZR)	"The website publishes information that is written by experts, and that is probably checked multiple times" (Student 1C1)
Level 2: Relevant justification (2 points)	"I do not believe that the website provider checks published information very thoroughly" (Student 37B)	"One can give feedback to newspapers if there are mistakes in the content" (Student 1PW)	"Because the website is owned by the firm, it can publish there what it wants" (Student 2PY)	"Experts from different fields work in the research center" (Student 2SY)
Level 1: Tangential or vague justification (1 point)	"It is a blog of a mother, who does not base her knowledge on research” (Student 1FS)	"Newspapers aim at transmitting correct information" (Student 175)	"It is an advertisement of a store, the purpose of which is to promote sales" (Student 15 M)	“References are marked correctly and author contact information” (Student 2V5)
Level 0: Inadequate justification (0 points)	"It is a blog" (Student 2HU)	“He told about the issue in a reasonable manner” (Student 2QJ)	"It is not correct information" (Student 3AR)	“Because the website is about this particular topic” (Student 3SM)