How to Write an Introduction to an Essay by z the Author
The introductory paragraph of your essay should set the scene for what you are going to say. It is also a good chance to grab the reader’s attention.
A riveting novel of Zelda Fitzgerald and her relationship with F Scott Fitzgerald – her battles with mental illness, her time in asylums and their scintillating social life with the Lost Generation (including Hemmingway). An excellent portrait of a fascinating woman.
Music
z the author releases raw and emotional music that connects with listeners on a deep level. His ability to eloquently convey his thoughts and feelings with such authenticity earns him the attention of fans across the nation. The artist from Albuquerque, New Mexico, has built a unique position in the genre of Contemporary Hip Hop with his alluring blend of rhythmic beats and thought-provoking lyrics. Sign up for the music newsletter to stay updated on new releases and more.
The ability to associate a researcher with the results of his or her work is central to the framework of science. It is also a significant factor in assessing the quality of a researcher’s research and in making decisions regarding promotion and tenure.
Consequently, the issue of authorship is one of the most frequently mediated issues that scientific ombudsman address.
Identifying the Authors
Research teams should discuss and agree upon their authorship policy at the planning stage. This should include specific criteria and an explicit agreement on the roles and responsibilities of each individual. It is also advisable to record these decisions, and revisit them where relevant, as the project progresses.
As noted above, authors should ensure that they meet all four of the ICMJE guidelines. This includes having made a significant contribution to the conception, design, execution or acquisition of data and to the analysis and interpretation of the results. Authors should also have drafted the article or substantially revised it. Moreover, authors should be able to identify their own contributions to the article, and if necessary, explain them in detail.
It is the responsibility of all authors to ensure that the corresponding author’s name is correctly displayed and that the order of co-authors is correct. Any changes to this information should be discussed and agreed between the corresponding author and any other authors before submission or publication.
Identifying the Contributions
As scientific research increasingly becomes a team affair, it is vital that people who do work get credit and accountability for it. It is also important that stakeholders like potential collaborators, reviewers and tenure committees can understand what was actually done in a published paper. This requires information on the extent, breadth and nature of contributions. Unfortunately, current authorship practice provides insufficient detail to satisfy these needs.
While traditional policies and criteria for authorship focus on idea generation, funding/project administration, data collection, analysis and reporting, there is a growing recognition that other types of contributions are essential to scientific progress (Cooke et al. 2021).
In addition to identifying individuals who meet the criteria for authorship, authors should also consider listing non-authors who made important contributions to an article in an ‘Acknowledgments’ or ‘Contributions’ section. This could include technical assistants, formatting-related writing assistance, translators or scholarly discussions which significantly contributed to the development of an article.
Identifying the Acknowledgments
In academic writing, the acknowledgement section allows authors to thank individuals who made specific contributions to their research. The list should include people who provided intellectual, material, or financial support, as well as those who gave moral or personal guidance. It should also name people who helped with the study, but did not meet the criteria for authorship (check your target journal’s Instructions to Authors for guidelines).
Research collaboration often involves transfer of skills. This can help authors overcome challenges in their work, especially in areas such as technical or written communication. It can also help researchers develop a sense of scientific identity and independence.
In cases of co-authorship, it is important to establish a clear hierarchy that clarifies the roles and responsibilities of each person involved in the article. This will prevent disputes over the distribution of credit and privileges. It will also ensure that the correct information is disseminated. This will enhance the credibility and impact of the paper.
Identifying the Conclusions
The conclusion section of your article provides an opportunity to encapsulate the main findings of your research, and to demonstrate their importance. Your conclusions can highlight how your work fills gaps in the literature and contributes to the overall body of knowledge.
Disputes over authorship can delay research and hinder publication, and they can damage collaborations. Ideally, authors should discuss and agree on co-authorship arrangements at the outset of a project.
However, in some cases, these conversations may not take place and, in the case of multi-institutional or interdisciplinary projects, they can be difficult to resolve. In such cases, the involvement of a third party who is familiar with publication norms in the discipline (see Addendum B) can be helpful to facilitate a discussion and resolution of an authorship dispute. In addition, training for facilitating discussions of team structures, leadership styles, and responsibilities can help to prevent these disputes (see strategies 5 and 9).
From the time of Irenaeus until modern times, Christians have regarded 1 Peter as an authentic epistle from the apostle. External and internal evidence support this view.
A number of arguments have been made against this belief. These include the assumption that there was a great deal of hostility between Paul and Peter, and the claim that the epistle deals with persecution that is too sophisticated for a Galilean fisherman.
Authenticity
Many scholars have argued that 1 Peter was written by someone other than the apostle Peter. This debate has often focused on linguistic, historical, and theological points of contention.
The linguistic point of dispute involves the use of sophisticated Greek vocabulary and rhetoric. It is claimed that first-century Galilean fishermen like Peter would not have been familiar with this level of Greek, which was influenced by the Septuagint, a Greek translation of the Old Testament.
Moreover, it is also alleged that the letter contains incongruities with Paul’s theology and a lack of references to Jesus’ teachings and ministry. Some scholars have argued that this evidence supports the view that the epistle is pseudonymous and was written later than AD 65.
However, scholars such as Achtemeier and Best argue that the evidence does not support this conclusion. In particular, the use of the Greek word for “thee” in 1 Peter 1:1 is very similar to the tense used in the Gospel of John and elsewhere in the New Testament.
Authorship
Some scholars have argued that 1 Peter cannot be authentic because it contains no explicit references to Paul. They argue that it must be pseudonymous. However, such arguments are flawed. They rely on the assumption that only someone who knows Paul would have such references, and they fail to consider that a letter’s author could not have been expected to know everything that had happened in the church during his lifetime.
Other scholars have argued that the letter is authentic because it claims to be from Peter and addresses Jews in Rome suffering persecution. They note that this persecution is similar to the ostracism Christians faced in pagan society and is not state sponsored.
Finally, some scholars have argued that the language of the letter is too sophisticated to be from an uneducated Galilean fisherman. They point to the use of the Septuagint (the Greek translation of the Old Testament) and the lack of semiticisms. They believe that the author of the letter could have been a well educated Greek, or that he had a scribe.
Sources
One major argument against Petrine authorship is that Peter used a scribe when writing his letter. Peter himself identifies the scribe as Silvanus when he states that the letter was delivered to them “by” Silvanus (5:12). Moreover, the author uses a fluent Greek style and various historical references that are not typical of a Galilean fisherman.
A further problem is that the letter contains many quotes and allusions to the Old Testament. These are usually based on the Greek Septuagint, rather than the Hebrew or Aramaic Targums that Peter would have been familiar with. This makes it difficult to reconcile with a Galilean fisherman who only knew Aramaic.
Nevertheless, the early church regarded 1 Peter as a genuine epistle of the apostle. In addition to Irenaeus, Tertullian, and Clement of Alexandria attributed it to Peter (Against Heresies 4.4.9), while Origen explicitly affirmed its apostolic authority (Ecclesiastical History 3.1.3). This external attestation is strong evidence that the book is authentic.
Conclusions
A number of arguments have been made against Peter’s authorship of 1 Peter. Some of these have to do with the writing style and vocabulary. The epistle uses sophisticated Greek that is beyond the ability of a Galilean fisherman. It also makes use of the Septuagint, which is a Greek translation of the Old Testament.
Another argument has to do with the lack of references to Jesus’ teachings and ministry. This is highly subjective and requires the interpretation of various passages.
Other criticisms have to do with the alleged hostility between Paul and Peter or the literary dependence of 1 Peter on the Pauline epistles. Both of these are largely unfounded. It is unlikely that there would have been any hostility between the apostles or that they would have been influenced by each other’s writings. Likewise, it is highly unlikely that the writer of 1 Peter was dependent on any other works. He may have been familiar with the Old Testament prophecies, but that is not the same as being dependent on them.
