Your response to your classmates must be substantive. Share ideas, explore differences, and think critically about your classmates’ posts. Bring in information from your textbook, classroom resources or other credible sources that you find to contribute to the discussion. You are invited to share relevant audio, video, or images in your responses. You must cite and reference any sources you use, even in your responses to your classmates.  PEER RESPONSE:  The second source by Jay Hancock is a popular source since it offers a report of the issue in question: employees' privacy in relation to the wellness program (UC Santa Cruz University, n.d.). In addition, it features public opinion on the topic of discussion. For instance, the report's author includes Ray Hunt's view, president of the Houston police department, about giving their information to healthcare providers (Hancock, 2015). Furthermore, the article is not peer-reviewed, like in a scholarly paper, since it is just edited by its editor and published. Both the articles have their specific audiences. The first article by Ajunwa et al. (2016) is a scholarly article is written, targeting scholars. The report is written mainly for academic purposes and for academicians who mostly find the results helpful to further their research on the same topic or in a related field. The audiences are the specialists and researchers who are peers to the research’s contributors (Morehead State University, 2015). With this audience, the language in the articles is topic-specific, such that it only reflects the topic under discussion, utilizing vocabulary related. The organization of the article is formal and orderly, with the subtopics arranged in chronological order. Images may be present, but only if they represent something about the topic.  As a popular article, the second article targets the general audience and readers since they usually entertain, inform, and persuade individuals about a particular matter (Morehead State University, 2015). The audience, in most cases, is not specialized, but the general public is looking to be informed about the current events and issues, which may include sports, politics, and culture. The article's organization lacks order since the author is not guided. The language is not formal but chosen to suit the reader and the writer. Images are primarily used with no direct connection to the topic. The two articles have different levels of credibility. The first article, which is a scholarly source, is more credible because they have been through a review process that is rigorous and comprehensive by scholars and specialists who have the knowledge and expertise on the topic under discussion (Elmhurst University, 2020). Features making it credible include past literature about the subject and supporting documents cited and forming the reference section of the article.  An example of the cited source is in use where Ajunwa et al. says that it is not yet defined if the .

1. Your response to your classmates must be substantive. Share
ideas, explore differences, and think critically about your
classmates’ posts. Bring in information from your textbook,
classroom resources or other credible sources that you find to
contribute to the discussion. You are invited to share relevant
audio, video, or images in your responses. You must cite and
reference any sources you use, even in your responses to your
classmates.
PEER RESPONSE:
The second source by Jay Hancock is a popular source since it
offers a report of the issue in question: employees' privacy in
relation to the wellness program (UC Santa Cruz University,
n.d.). In addition, it features public opinion on the topic of
discussion. For instance, the report's author includes Ray Hunt's
view, president of the Houston police department, about giving
their information to healthcare providers (Hancock, 2015).
Furthermore, the article is not peer-reviewed, like in a scholarly
paper, since it is just edited by its editor and published.
Both the articles have their specific audiences. The first article
by Ajunwa et al. (2016) is a scholarly article is written,
targeting scholars. The report is written mainly for academic
purposes and for academicians who mostly find the results
helpful to further their research on the same topic or in a related
field. The audiences are the specialists and researchers who are
peers to the research’s contributors (Morehead State University,
2015). With this audience, the language in the articles is topic-
specific, such that it only reflects the topic under discussion,
utilizing vocabulary related. The organization of the article is
formal and orderly, with the subtopics arranged in chronological

2. order. Images may be present, but only if they represent
something about the topic. As a popular article, the second
article targets the general audience and readers since they
usually entertain, inform, and persuade individuals about a
particular matter (Morehead State University, 2015). The
audience, in most cases, is not specialized, but the general
public is looking to be informed about the current events and
issues, which may include sports, politics, and culture. The
article's organization lacks order since the author is not guided.
The language is not formal but chosen to suit the reader and the
writer. Images are primarily used with no direct connection to
the topic.
The two articles have different levels of credibility. The first
article, which is a scholarly source, is more credible because
they have been through a review process that is rigorous and
comprehensive by scholars and specialists who have the
knowledge and expertise on the topic under discussion
(Elmhurst University, 2020). Features making it credible
include past literature about the subject and supporting
documents cited and forming the reference section of the
article. An example of the cited source is in use where Ajunwa
et al. says that it is not yet defined if the wellness program
providers meet the HIPAA regulations, applicable to hospitals
and doctors, and goes ahead to state its contents (Ajunwa et al.,
2016). On the contrary, the second article by Hancock is not
credible since it is not reviewed, instead edited and published
by the publishing bodies, magazines, and news blogs. It lacks
features like citations and references to support the presented
information and offers unsubstantial information with no facts
or proof. An example is where the author, Hancock, says that
millions of people find themselves in the situation as Houston
cops, who are unwilling to give their information to healthcare
providers (Hancock, 2015). There is no supporting evidence
from research that could substantiate the claim.

3. The first article by Ajunwa et al., a scholarly source, can
support academic research in the same field of study by scholars
and researchers. The source would be significant in research
situations in employee medical information and information
privacy at the workplace. My concern while using these sources
is little information present; hence I will need to have
additional research to beef it up in the long run. The second
article, a popular source, could address gaps in the current
initiatives about employee healthcare and related trends. In
situations where people need to understand what is going in the
employment sector as far as healthcare is concerned, the source
might come in handy. My concern, however, when using the
source remains the unsubstantial information presented by the
author. There is a lack of proof and facts accompanying the
article.
References
Ajunwa, I., Crawford, K., & Ford, J. S. (2016). Health and big
data: An ethical framework for health information collection by
corporate wellness programs.
The Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics
,
44
(3), 474-480.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1073110516667943 (Links to an
external site.)
Elmhurst University. (2020, Aug 13).
Source evaluation and credibility: Journals and
Magazines
.
https://library.elmhurst.edu/credibility (Links to an external
site.)

4. Hancock, J. (2015, Oct 2).
Workplace wellness programs put employee privacy at risk
. CNN.
https://edition.cnn.com/2015/09/28/health/workplace-wellness-
privacy-risk-exclusive/index.html (Links to an external site.)
Morehead State University. (2015, Dec 8).
Distinctions among types of periodicals: Intended
audience
.
https://research.moreheadstate.edu/c.php?g=106978&p=694271#
acaud (Links to an external site.)
UC Santa Cruz University. (n.d.).
Distinguish between Popular and Scholarly Journals
.
https://guides.library.ucsc.edu/distinguish-between-popular-
and-scholarly-journals