Peer Reviewed Publishing on the AUPHA Network: Achieving Scholarly Recognition for Your Educational Works Robert Hernandez, DrPH Professor University of Alabama Kristi Donovan, MS, CAE Sr Dir., Professional Affairs AUPHA

Background AUPHA Network est Purpose: –To build a library of resources for teaching health administration –To identify best practices in teaching –To help health administration faculty network with colleagues

Building a Resource Collection Challenges: –How can we encourage faculty to submit materials? –How can faculty earn scholarly recognition for contributing? –How do we know what’s “good” and what’s not? Do we agree? –How can faculty avoid publicly giving negative feedback to published material?

Answering the Challenge 2010: Volunteer committee of health administration faculty (grad & undergrad) appointed to develop process for submitting, reviewing and publishing educational works 2011: Guidelines developed for submitting case studies 2012: Feedback obtained from faculty

Development Based on processes used by: –Society for Case Research (submission parameters) –National Center for Case Study Teaching in Science, University of Buffalo (submission parameters) –MedEd Portal by American Association of Medical Colleges (publishing standards/publishing online)

Case Studies Focus on case studies first –High demand for case studies –Low availability of case studies for healthcare administration education Expand to other educational materials –Assignments –Evaluations –Projects –Other identified needs

Case Study Submission Cases vs constructed cases –Case studies reflect real situations in actual organizations; identities may be disguised, some data altered –Constructed cases based on fictitious situations created to illustrate a concept

Copyright Authors retain copyright Once material is published it will not be removed, but may be updated (review may be required if updates are substantial) Authors may modify copyright via Creative Commons licensing Creative Commons

Creative Commons License How it works: na-work-together na-work-together Used by MedEd Portal

Releases You need to provide: –Releases from organizations providing data (if submitting a case) –Releases for graphics/photos used –Statement verifying authorship

Accessibility All AUPHA members will have access to your work Individual members will have credentials verified for access Student members will not have access to materials

Review Process Peer review committee of 3 experts will review document within 4-6 weeks of submission Comments, edits submitted to author Edited document(s) to be published online in a special collection

Review Criteria Glassick’s Six Criteria for Scholarship of Teaching, used by academic medicine: 1.Clear goals 2.Adequate preparation 3.Appropriate methods 4.Significant results 5.Effective presentation 6.Reflective critique

Scholarly Recognition Precedent set by AAMC/MedEd Portal – > 2,000 peer reviewed resources

Scholarly Recognition Successful submissions to be referenced by standard citation May be used/referenced for tenure and promotion decisions Identified in a special collection library – or identified with a graphic

Similarities to Publishing in Traditional Journals Peer review policy similar to JHAE and other print journals Rigorous peer review process

Data for Scholarly Recognition Usage data available to authors: –Number of downloads –Number of shares –Number of favorites Users may provide: –Ratings –Public comments –Private comments ( direct to author)

Interested? Review the submission process Submit a case Contact Kristi Donovan with questions

Special thanks to: Bob Hernandez, University of Alabama Ellen Averett, University of Kansas Medical Center Leigh Cellucci, East Carolina University Suzanne Havala Hobbs, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill Eddie Hooker, Xavier University Linda Hunter, College of Saint Elizabeth Windsor Sherrill, Clemson University

Questions?

Need more information? Contact Kristi Donovan: