Revised: April 19, 2009

School of Public Health

University of California, Berkeley

Second Year DrPH Seminar

PB HLTH 293-02, Fall, 2008 and Spring, 2009

Fall, 2008 (CC# 76286, section 02)

· Wednesday, 10:00 – 12:00, , WFB 11^th floor (3credits)

Spring, 2009 (CC# 76325, section 02)

· Wednesday, 10:00 – 12:30, WFB 11^th floor (3 credits)

Instructors

Norman A. Constantine, PhD 237 University Hall (925) 284-8118 nconstantine@berkeley.edu http://sph.berkeley.edu/faculty/constantine.html

Cheri Pies, MSW, DrPH 237 University Hall (925) 313-6254 cpies@berkeley.edu http://sph.berkeley.edu/faculty/pies.html

Syllabus at: http://crahd.phi.org/PH293-02Syllabus.htm

Course Description

This seminar is a two-semester sequence to prepare second year DrPH students to successfully complete a dissertation, and to help students develop and strengthen critical appraisal skills for public health research.

The course consists of two intertwined strands across both semesters.

(1) Cheri Pies will lead Strand 1 and will focus on students’ development and presentation of prospectuses and preparation for orals. This will include practical topics such as identifying research topics, developing timelines, understanding the qualifying exam process, protection of human subjects, dissertation writing skills, and finding dissertation funding. Also included will be informal student presentations of early ideas for class discussion and feedback, and later more formal PowerPoint presentations to the class to simulate and prepare for the qualifying exam experience.

(2) Norm Constantine will lead Strand 2 and will focus on scientific foundations for research, critical appraisal of evidence, and research methods application issues. Topics will include evidence and argument, critical thinking, scientific reasoning, theoretical frameworks, issues in causal inference, and the importance of addressing plausible rival hypotheses and threats to validity. Also included will be a review of common application issues in a variety of methodological approaches, including qualitative research, mixed methods and critical multiplism, case study methods, experimental, quasi-experimental, and correlational designs, multiple linear and logistic regression analysis, and null hypothesis significance testing. These specific methods sessions are not intended to substitute for a more comprehensive class in one or more of the methods covered, but rather to provide an overview of the potential strengths and limitations of each method, and a discussion of key issues in appropriate use and interpretation. A common framework of plausible rival hypotheses and threats to validity will guide our review of each method. This strand will conclude with a review of policy use of research evidence, and peer-reviewed publication issues.

Competencies and Objectives

Participation in this course will provide an opportunity to fully or partially master the following competencies:

1. Identify important gaps in scientific knowledge that impede the resolution of public health problems.
2. Initiate, organize, and pursue the investigation of problems or opportunities in public health practice.
3. Identify public health policy issues and contribute to rigorous policy analysis and decision-making.
4. Critically appraise concepts, theories, and the research literature in an area of concentration.
5. Critically assess public health arguments, claims, and evidence.
6. Explain the fundamental roles of heuristics, biases, emotions, values, and prior beliefs in the selection, interpretation, and appraisal of research evidence by researchers and research consumers.
7. Understand and apply the guiding principles of rigorous scientific research, scientific inquiry, and scientific reasoning.
8. Describe the relationship between research questions and research methods.
9. Explain the importance and use of theoretical foundations for scientific research.
10. Select and apply the appropriate qualitative and quantitative research methods to address specific public health research questions.
11. Understand and apply the concepts of plausible rival hypotheses, validity evidence, and validity threats to the design and appraisal of both quantitative and qualitative research.
12. Systematically critique and defend the student’s own and others’ research.
13. Communicate and present research findings both verbally and in writing to scientific, policy practice, and public audiences in a lucid and understandable manner.
14. Compare and contrast the various models of research evidence use in policy making and practice.

By the end of the two-semester seminar, students will achieve the following objectives:

1. Understand the guiding principles of rigorous scientific research, the fundamental roles of research questions and research methods, and application of the concepts of plausible rival hypotheses and validity threats to a variety of quantitative and qualitative research strategies.
2. Complete a solid written draft of the dissertation prospectus.
3. Make a 15m presentation of prospectus to the seminar, followed by a 30 minute discussion period.
4. Finalize selection of Qualifying Committee members
5. Discuss the Qualifying Exam process with potential committee members

Grading Criteria

• Demonstration of appropriate and timely progress in conceptualization and development of dissertation prospectus, as documented by regular updates of the Dissertation Planning Summary, and the prospectus itself .
• Effective verbal presentation of prospectus, including content, timing, organization, and effective use of PowerPoint.
• Participation in methods session discussions, demonstrating appropriate engagement with assigned readings and constructive contributions to the discussions.
• Written critique assignment of a key research study in student's topic area .
• Regular and timely attendance and assignment completion.

Class Assignments

Fall semester

• Assigned readings and short written exercises (questions and/or scenarios to respond to) for each of the four methods sessions.
• Two-page summary and 15-minute oral presentation of dissertation ideas and preliminary plans.
• Detailed prospectus outline.
• Solid draft of introduction and literature review sections of prospectus.

Spring semester

• Assigned readings and short written exercises for each of the nine methods sessions.
• A brief (approximately two single-spaced pages) methodological critique of a published article from the student’s dissertation literature review.

• A formal 15 minute prospectus presentation followed by 30 minutes of questions and discussion. Key expectations for the presentations are (1) to plan and manage time appropriately so that the presentation ends within 15 minutes without a rush through the ending, (2) use of Power Point slides in a lively and effective manner that includes good use of simple and compelling charts and pictures, and avoids too many slides, crowded slides, and slides with more than a few words of text.
• Completion of prospectus.

FALL SCHEDULE
	Strand 1 (Cheri)	Strand 2 (Norm)
August 27	· Welcome and introductions · Potential dissertation topics · Class overview
September 3		· Issues, truth claims, evidence, and argument · Research questions and research methods
September 10	· Students meet in pairs or small groups to discuss readings
September 17		· Principles of scientific inquiry · The role of theory
September 24	· Writing your prospectus: Part I · Developing timelines · Preparing for short presentations
October 1	· Protection of human subjects Rebecca Armstrong, Director CPHS
October 8	· The qualifying exam: Faculty members’ perspectives · Writing your prospectus: Part II
October 15		· Critical thinking · Motivated reasoning
October 22	· Funding your dissertation, Sabrina Soracco, Director, Academic Services, Graduate Division
October 29	· Diss. ideas discussion: two students
November 5	· Diss. ideas discussion: two students
November 12	· Diss. ideas discussion: two students
November 19		· Clues to the puzzle of scientific evidence · Critical appraisal of evidence
November 26	(No class)
December 3	· Diss. ideas discussion: two students
December 10	· Dissertation ideas discussion: one student · Next steps for your work · Course evaluation

SPRING SCHEDULE
	Strand 1 (Cheri)	Strand 2 (Norm)
January 21		· Issues in causal inference · Review of plausible rival hypotheses and validity threats
January 28	· Effective PowerPoint presentations (Ellie Schindelman)
February 4		· Qualitative research methods: How might you be wrong?
February 11	· Two student PowerPoint presentations
February 18		· Critical multiplism and mixed methods research
February 25		· Case study methods: Keeping them rigorous
March 4	· Two student PowerPoint presentations
March 11	· Two student PowerPoint presentations
March 18		· Issues in multiple linear and logistic regression analysis and other linear models
March 25	(Spring break, no class)
April 1		· Issues in null hypothesis significance testing
April 8	· Two student PowerPoint presentations
April 15		· Issues in experimental, quasi-experimental, and correlational research designs
April 22	· Two student PowerPoint presentations
April 29		· Evidence-b(i)ased public health policy: Policy use of research
May 6		· Publish and prosper: Issues in peer-review · Course evaluation

FALL SEMESTER TEXTS

A reserve copy of each will be available in Claire Murphy’s office (University Hall 239), however purchasing your own copies is recommended.

1. Browne M. N. & Keeley, S. M. (2006). Asking the right questions: A guide to critical thinking. (8^th edition). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall.

2. Trochim, W. M. & Donnelly, J. P. (2006). The research methods knowledge base. (3rd Edition). Cincinnati, OH: Atomic Dog Publishing. (Okay to use printed 2^nd edition, or free web-version of 2^nd edition at: http://www.socialresearchmethods.net/kb/contents.php, but the printed copy is recommended.)

FALL SEMESTER ASSIGNED READINGS

Methods Session 1: September 3, 2008 (Issues, truth claims, evidence, and argument; Research questions and research methods)

1. Browne & Keeley (2006). Chapters 1-3. (Asking the right questions, Issues and conclusions, Reasons).

2. Trochim & Donnelly (2006). Chapter 1. (Foundations, 3^rd edition pp. 4-30, or 2^nd edition pp. 3-37, or on the web: Link.)

3. Shavelson, R. & Towne, L. (2003). What drives scientific research in education? Questions, not methods, should drive the enterprise. Association for Psychological Science Observer, 17(4). View

4. Cummings, S.R., Browner, W.S., & Hulley, S.B. (2001). Conceiving the research question. In Designing clinical research. (chapter 2). View

Methods Session 2: September 17, 2008 (Principles of scientific inquiry; The role of theory)

1. Shavelson, R. & Towne, L. (Eds.) (2002). Guiding principles for scientific inquiry. In Scientific research in education. National Research Council Committee on Scientific Principles for Education Research, Washington, DC: National Academy Press. (Chapter 3). View

2. Phillips, D.C. (2000). Preface, and Chapter 6 (New philosophy of science, pp.101-115). View

3. Trochim & Donnelly (2006). Chapter 3. (Theory of Measurement, 3^rd edition pp. 56-97, or 2^nd edition pp. 63-105, or on the web: Link.)

4. Green, J. (2000). The role of theory in evidence-based health promotion practice. [editorial]. Health Education Research, 15(2), 125-129. View

Recommended:

· Jessor, R. (2005). Remarks on the changing nature of inquiry. Journal of Adolescent Health, 37, 9-10. (2 pages) View

· Hughes, J. N. (2000). The essential role of theory in the science of treating children: Beyond empirically supported treatments. Journal of School Psychology, 38, 301–330. View

· Campbell, D. T. (1984) Can we be scientific in applied social science? In R. F. Conner and others (eds.), Evaluation Studies Review Annual. Vol. 9. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. View

· Okasha, S. (2002). Philosophy of science: A very short introduction. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

Methods Session 3: October 15, 2008 (Critical thinking; Scientific and other types of good reasoning)

1. Browne & Keeley (2006). Chapters 4-7. (Ambiguity, Value assumptions, Descriptive assumptions, Reasoning fallacies).

2. Campbell (1989/2003) and Yin (2000). Plausible rival hypotheses: Core of the scientific method. (2 pages) View

3. Kunda, Z. (1990). The case for motivated reasoning. Psychological Bulletin, 108, 480-498.

Recommended

• Phillips, D.C. (2000). Chapter 8 (Popperian rules for research design). View

• Ditto, P. H., & Lopez, D. F. (1992). Motivated skepticism: Use of differential decision criteria for preferred and nonpreferred conclusions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63(4), 568-584. View

• Evans, JSBT. (2002). The influence of prior beliefs on scientific thinking. In Carruthers, P., Stich, S., and Siegal, M. (Eds.) The cognitive basis of science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

• Faust, D. (1984). The limits of scientific reasoning. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

Methods Session 4: November 19, 2007 (Clues to the puzzle of scientific evidence; Critical appraisal of evidence)

1. Browne & Keeley (2006). Chapters 8 and 9. (How good is the evidence: Intuition, personal experience, testimonials, and appeals to authority; and How good is the evidence: Observations, research studies, case examples, and analogies).

2. Constantine, N. A & Braverman, M. T. (2004). Appraising evidence on program effectiveness. In M. T. Braverman, N. A. Constantine, and J. K. Slater (Eds.), Foundations and evaluation: Contexts and practices for effective philanthropy. (Chapter 12). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. View

3. Gorman, D.M. (2003). Prevention programs and scientific nonsense. Policy Review, 117. View

4. Ioannidis, J. P. A. (2005). Why most published research findings are false. PLoS Medicine, 2, 696-701.

Recommended

· Haack, S. (2003). Defending science -- Within reason: Between scientism and cynicism. New York: Prometheus. Preface, and Chapter 3 (Clues to the puzzle of scientific evidence: A more so story). View

ADDITIONAL TEXTS FOR SPRING SEMESTER

We will continue to use selections from the two texts from the fall semester. In addition students should choose one or the other, or both, of the following, depending on whether your primary focus is quantitative or qualitative, or both. A reserve copy of each will be available in Claire Murphy’s office (University Hall 239), however purchasing your own copy of at least one of the two is recommended.

1. Quantitative focus: Aneshensel, C.S. (2002). Theory-based data analysis for the social sciences. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publishers.

2. Qualitative focus: Maxwell, J.A. (2005). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach (2^nd edition). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

SPRING SEMESTER ASSIGNED READINGS (tentative, subject to change)

Methods Session 5: January 21, 2009 (Issues in causal inference; Review of plausible rival hypotheses and validity threats)

1. Browne & Keeley (2006). Chapters 11 through 13 (Statistics; Omitted information; Possible reasonable conclusions).

2. Rutter, M. (2003). Poverty and mental health: Natural experiments and social causation. (Editorial). Journal of the American Medical Association, 290, 2063-2064. View

3. Hill, A. B. (1965). The environment and disease: association or causation? Proceedings of the Royal Society of Medicine, 58, 295-300. View

4. Davey Smith, G. & Ebrahim, S. (2001). Epidemiology -- Is it time to call it a day? International Journal of Epidemiology, 30, 1-11. View

Recommended

· Cornfield, J. (1959) Smoking and lung cancer: recent evidence and a discussion of some questions. Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 22, 173-203. View (large scanned pdf file, might take three or more minutes to download).

• Constantine, N. A. (2005). Do virginity pledges cause virginity? (Web discussion, View).

Methods Session 6: February 4, 2009 (Qualitative research methods: How might you be wrong?)

1. Phillips, D.C. (2000). The expanded social scientist’s bestiary: a guide to fabled threats to, and defenses of, naturalistic social science. New York: Rowman & Littlefield. (Chapter 10: Qualitative research and its warrant.) View

2. Maxwell, J. A. (2005). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach (2^nd edition). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. (Chapter 6 Validity: How might you be wrong?) View

3. Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods. (3^rd edition). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. (types of purposeful sampling: pp. 230-246). View (large scanned file)

Required for qualitative-focus students, recommended for others

· Maxwell, J. A. (2005). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach (2^nd edition). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Methods Session 7: February 18, 2009 (Critical multiplism and mixed methods research)

Brief Overviews

1. One-page overview of deductive and inductive aspects of research, and how they fit together in all types of research, at: http://www.socialresearchmethods.net/kb/dedind.php (from last semester)

2. Greene and colleagues’ purposes and analytic strategies View

Required Readings

1. Reichardt, C. S. & Rallis, S. F. (1994). The relationship between the qualitative and quantitative research traditions; Qualitative and quantitative inquiries are not incompatible. New Directions for Program Evaluation, 61, 5-11, 85-91. View

2. Letourneau, N. & Allen, M. (1999). Post-positivistic critical multiplism: a beginning dialogue. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 30, 623-630. View

3. Read one of the following two articles, Shadish is more theoretical and shorter, Sosulski and Lawrence is more applied but longer:

• Shadish, W. R. (1995). Philosophy of science and the quantitative-qualitative debates - 13 common errors. Evaluation and Program Planning,18(1), 63-75. View
• Sosulski, M. R. & Lawrence, C. (2008).Mixing methods for full strength results: Two welfare studies. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 2, 121-148. View

Recommended

• Shadish W. R. (1993) Critical multiplism: a research strategy and its attendant tactics. New Directions for Program Evaluation, 60,13-57. View
• Creswell, J. W. & Plano Clark, V. L. (2007). Designing and conducting mixed methods research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. (Very good overview text, except for the superficial and confused discussion of worldviews/paradigms, which should be ignored.)
• (I do not recommend Tashakkori and Teddlie’s books on this topic.)

Methods Session 8: February 25, 2009 (Case study methods: Keeping them rigorous)

1. Yin, R. (1998). The abridged version of case study research: Design and method. In L. Bickman and D. Rog (Eds.), Handbook of applied social research methods. (pp. 229-259). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. View

2. Constantine, N. A. & Nevarez, C. R. (2006). Multiple-case study on evidence-use in the sex education debates: The interacting roles of values, beliefs, and collateral information. (hypotheses and methods, excerpts from funded proposal to the W.T. Grant Foundation. View)

Recommended

• Yin, R. (2003). Case study research: Design and methods (3rd edition). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

• Yin, R. (2003). Applications of case study research (2nd edition). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

• Miles, M. B. & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook (2nd edition). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. (methods for cross-case analysis).

Methods Session 9: March 18, 2009 (Issues in multiple regression analysis)

Required readings

1. Tabachnick, B. G. & Fidell, L. S. (2007). Using multivariate statistics (5^th edition). New York: Allyn and Bacon. (Major types of multiple regression, pp. 136-140. ) View

2. Victora, et al. (1997). The role of conceptual frameworks in epidemiological analysis: A hierarchical approach. International Journal of Epidemiology, 26(1): 224-227. View

3. Pedhazur, E. J. (1997). Prediction and explanation (pp. 195-198, 211). In Multiple regression in behavioral research: Prediction and explanation. View

Review of basics

• Allison, P. D. (1999). Multiple regression: A primer. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, Pine Forge Press. (On reserve in room 239).

Recommended, especially for quantitative-focus students

• Aneshensel, C.S. (2002). Theory-based data analysis for the social sciences. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publishers, Pine Forge Press. (On reserve in room 239).

• Pedhazur, E. J. & Schmelkin, L. P. (1991). Multiple regression analysis (and cautions on variance partitioning) (pp. 413-428). In Measurement, design, and analysis: An integrated approach. View

• Tabachnick, B. G. & Fidell, L. S. (2007). Using multivariate statistics (5^th edition). New York: Allyn and Bacon.

Methods Session 10: April 1, 2009 (Issues in null hypothesis significance testing)

1. Bower, B. (1997). Null science: Psychology’s statistical status quo draws fire. Science News, 151, 356-357. View

2. Cohen, J. (1994). The earth is round (p < .05). American Psychologist, 49, 997–1003. View

3. McCartney, K., & Rosenthal, R. (2000). Effect size, practical importance, and social policy for children. Child Development, 71(1), 173-180. View

4. Grossman, D. C., et al. (1997). Effectiveness of a violence prevention curriculum among children in elementary school: A randomized trial. JAMA, 277, 1605–1611. View

Review of basics (if needed)

· Excellent primers on Statistical Significance and P Values (View), Type I and Type II errors (View), and Confidence Intervals (View)

· Trochim, W. M. (2000). Hypotheses (Link); The T-Test (Link); Statistical Power (Link). The Research Methods Knowledge Base, (2nd Edition).

Recommended

· Cohen, J. (1992). A Power Primer. Psychological Bulletin, 112(1), 155-159. View

Methods Session 11: April 15, 2009 (Issues in experimental, quasi-experimental, and correlational research designs)

1. Trochim & Donnelly (2006). Designs: Internal validity (and four subsections); Introduction to design; and Types of designs, 3^rd edition pp. 158-175, or 2^nd edition pp. 171-190, or on the web: Link.

2. Reichardt, C. S. & Mark, M. M. (1998). Quasi-experimentation. In L. Bickman & D. J. Rog (eds.), Handbook of applied social research methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. (pp. 193-228). View

3. Trochim & Donnelly (2006). Advanced design topics: Designing designs for research; and Advances in quasi-experimentation, 3^rd edition pp. 231-247, or 2^nd edition pp. 237-254, or on the web: Link.

Recommended

· Trochim & Donnelly (2006). Designs: Experimental designs, Quasi-experimental designs, and Relationship among pre-post designs, 3^rd edition pp. 185-229, 242-244, or 2^nd edition pp. 191-236, 248-249, or on the web: Link.

· Shadish, W.R., Cook, T. D., & Campbell, D. T.  (2002). Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for generalized causal inference.  Boston:  Houghton-Mifflin.

Methods Session 12: April 29, 2009 (Evidence-based public health: Policy use and misuse of research evidence)

1. Altman, D. G. (2002). Poor quality medical research: What can journals do? Journal of the American Medical Association, 287, 2765-2767. View

2. Smith, G.C.S. & J.P. & Pell, J.P. (2003). Parachute use to prevent death and major trauma related to gravitational challenge: systematic review of randomised controlled trials. BMJ, 27, 1459-1461. View

3. Weiss, C. H., & Bucuvalas, M. J. (1980). Truth tests and utility tests: Decision makers’ frames of reference for social science research. American Sociological Review, 45, 302-313. View.

4. Weiss, C. H. (1979). The many meanings of research utilization. Public Administration Review, 39, 426-431. View.

5. Westen, D. & Bradley, R. (2005). Empirically supported complexity: Rethinking evidence-based practice in psychotherapy. Current Directions In Psychological Science, 14, 266-271. View.

Recommended

• Altman, D. G. (1994). The scandal of poor quality medical research. BMJ, 308, 283-284. View.

• Constantine, N. A., Jerman, P., & Huang, A.X. (2007). Evidence-b(i)ased policy deliberation: A motivated reasoning framework. (especially pp. 1-13). Paper presented at the 29th Annual Association for Public Policy Analysis and Management Research Conference. Washington, DC. View.

• Gorman, D. M. & Conde, E. (2007). Conflict of interest in the evaluation and dissemination of ‘‘model’’ school-based drug and violence prevention programs. Evaluation and Program Planning, 30, 422–429. View.

• Hanney, S. R., Gonzales-Block, M. A, Buxton, M. J., & Kogan, M. (2003). The utilization of health research in policy-making: Concepts, examples, and methods of assessment. Health Research Policy and Systems, 1, 1-28. View.

• Innvaer, S., Vist, G., Trommald, M., & Oxman, A. (2002). Health policy-makers perceptions of their use of evidence: A systematic review. Journal of Health Services Research and Policy, 7, 239-244. View.

• Melander, H., Ahlqvist-Rastad, J., Meijer, G., & Beermann, B. (2003). Evidence b(i)ased medicine: Selective reporting from studies sponsored by pharmaceutical industry. BMJ, 326, 1171–1173. View.

• Weiss, C.H. (1983). Ideology, interests, and information: The basis of policy positions. In D. Callahan & B. Jennings (Eds.), Ethics, the social sciences, and policy analysis (pp. 213-245). New York: Plenum Press. View.

• Weiss, C. H. (1991). Policy research: Data, ideas, or arguments? In P. Wagner, C. Weiss, B. Wittrock, & H. Wolman (Eds.), Social science and modern states (pp. 307-322). Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press. View.

• Weiss, C. H., Murphy-Graham, E., & Birkeland, S. (2005). An alternate route to policy influence: How evaluations affect D.A.R.E. American Journal of Evaluation, 26, 12-30. View.

Methods Session 13: May 6, 2009 (Publish and prosper: Issues in peer review)

(Note: all of these readings are short)

A. The peer review system

1. Constantine, N.A. (2007). The peer review process, and publication bias. In S. Boslaugh (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Epidemiology. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publishers. View

2. Goodman S. N., Altman D. G., & George S. L. (1998). Statistical reviewing policies of medical journals: Caveat lector? Journal of General Internal Medicine, 13, 753-756. View

3. Monastersky, R. (2005). Impact factor: The number that's devouring science. Chronicle of Higher Education, 52(8), A12. Link

4. Rennie, D. R. (1998). Freedom and responsibility in medical publishing: Setting the balance right. Journal of the American Medical Association, 280, 300-302. View

B. How to peer review

5. Hoppin, F.G. (2002). How I review an original scientific article. American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine, 166: 1019-1023. View

C. How to survive peer review

6. Roediger, H. L. (2007). Twelve tips for authors. APS Observer, 20(6), 39-41. View

7. Cummins, P. & Rivara, F. R. (2002). Responding to reviewers’ comments on submitted articles. Archives of Pediatric and Adolescent Medicine, 156, 105-107. View (notice the second author)

8. Northridge, M. E. & Susser, M. S. (1994). The paper route for submission to the journal: Seven fatal flaws in submitted manuscripts. American Journal of Public Health, 84, 717-719. View