Every source in the PUBH 6005 Week 3 literature search log example carries its origin: database, reference list, citation search, government report or librarian referral. Searches like "pubh 6005 week 3 assignment example", "pubh6005 week 3 sample" and "pubh 6005 week 3 example" land here.
What a finished PUBH 6005 Week 3 literature search log looks like
A dated table spanning three pages, followed by a short commentary. Each row records one search action: the date, the route taken, the exact terms or starting article, what was found, and what was kept. Routes are labeled by type. Database rows cover PubMed, PsycINFO and ERIC, with search terms written out in full. A hand-search row notes which review's reference list yielded two further studies. A forward citation row records which newer papers cited a key study. A report row logs the Surgeon General's report on e-cigarette use among youth and young adults, marked as a government source rather than peer-reviewed research. One row records a librarian consultation and the terms it added. The commentary counts how many kept sources each route supplied and names two searches that produced nothing useful.
How a PUBH 6005 Week 3 example is structured
Chronological order is the log's organizing rule, since the log exists to show how the search developed, including the moves prompted by what earlier searches turned up. Labeling each row by route adds a second way to read the same table, so a reader can see at a glance that the strongest sources came from citation chasing rather than from the first database query. Writing search terms in full keeps the log answerable to anyone retracing it: any row could be repeated. The government report is marked as a distinct kind of source so the later papers citing it do not treat it as a study. Recording dead ends is deliberate. They show that absence was tested, and the closing commentary turns the table into a finding about which routes serve this topic best.
One row per search action
Date, route, terms or starting article, what appeared and what was kept. Every row could be repeated by someone else.
Routes, labeled
Database, hand search, forward citation, government report and librarian. Labeled this way, the table shows which paths produced the sources that mattered.
Citation chasing
A review's reference list and a key study's later citations supplied more usable sources than the first database searches, and the log shows it.
A report, marked as a report
The Surgeon General's report on youth e-cigarette use is logged as a government source, useful for scope and not a substitute for peer-reviewed findings.
Dead ends kept
Two searches that returned nothing useful stay in the table, and the commentary explains what they ruled out.
Where marks go in PUBH 6005 Week 3
Traceability is the standard this log is held to, row by row. An entry reading searched databases for vaping articles tells a checking reader nothing; an entry naming the database, the terms and the date lets that reader follow. Variety of routes earns its own credit, because the week asks where sources came from, and a log with only database rows suggests the author stopped at the first method. Correct classification of sources is checked too: a government report or a news item logged as research costs accuracy. The commentary is often scored for reflection on the process. Logs are docked for undated rows, for kept sources that appear nowhere in the search record, and for search terms paraphrased instead of written out.
Get a PUBH 6005 Week 3 example written to your instructions
Name your topic, list any sources you already hold with where each came from, and forward the search assignment for Week 3 along with its rubric. The log records a real search on that topic, route by route. The first log is yours at no cost within 24 to 48 hours; rerun any row before citing what it found.
PUBH 6005 Week 3 questions, answered
Why log searches that found nothing?
Because anyone verifying the search wants to know what was tried, not only what worked. A dead end shows that a route was tested and ruled out, which strengthens any later claim that little research exists on a point. It also saves the author from repeating an unproductive search when the topic returns in a later course of the MPH.
Is the Surgeon General's report a scholarly source?
It is an authoritative government report that reviews and summarizes research, which makes it valuable for establishing scope and context. It is not itself a peer-reviewed study. The log marks it as a report so that later papers cite it for what it offers, an official synthesis, and turn to the original studies for specific findings.
Does the log need to include the librarian consultation?
Only if one happened, but many search logs benefit from it. Librarians often suggest terms or databases that change what a search can find, and recording that consultation shows the source of those changes. If your prompt specifies the routes to document, the log you get follows that list and leaves out anything your section does not ask for.