Though he didn’t mention it onstage, Wallace had recently joined something called the Green Scholars Initiative. Many consider him to be the best papyrologist on the planet.” The fragment, Wallace added, would appear in an academic book the next year. Wallace declined to name the expert who’d dated the papyrus to the first century-“I’ve been sworn to secrecy”-but assured the audience that his “reputation is unimpeachable. Its verses, moreover, closely matched those in modern Bibles-evidence of the New Testament’s reliability and a rebuke to liberal scholars who saw the good book not as God-given but as the messy work of generations of human hands, prone to invention and revision, mischief and mistake. The papyrus would be the only known Christian manuscript from the century in which Jesus is said to have lived. They had debated twice before, but this time Wallace had a secret weapon: At the end of his opening statement, he announced that verses of the Gospel of Mark had just been discovered on a piece of papyrus from the first century.Īs news went in the field of biblical studies, this was a bombshell. On the other was Daniel Wallace, a conservative scholar at Dallas Theological Seminary who believes that careful textual analysis can surface the New Testament’s divinely inspired first draft. On one side was Bart Ehrman, a UNC professor and atheist whose best-selling books argue that the oldest copies of Christian scripture are so inconsistent and incomplete-and so few in number-that the original words are beyond recovery. Authors should also consider how the interpretation of the study’s findings may be affected by the study limitations.To hear more feature stories, get the Audm iPhone app. What Do These Findings Mean? Authors should reflect on the new knowledge generated by the research and the implications for practice, research, policy, or public health. Do include the headline numbers from the study, such as the sample size and key findings. What Did the Researchers Do and Find? Authors should briefly describe the study design that was used and the study’s major findings. Why Was This Study Done? Authors should reflect on what was known about the topic before the research was published and why the research was needed. Bullet points should be objective, brief, succinct, specific, accurate, and avoid technical language. We ask authors to provide 2-3 single sentence bullet points for each of the following questions. The text is subject to editorial change and should not simply repeat text from the abstract or manuscript. Authors should avoid the use of acronyms and complex terminology wherever possible. Authors should aim to highlight where the research study fits within a broader context and present the significance or possible implications of the study simply and objectively. The aim of the Author Summary is to make your findings accessible to a wide audience that includes both scientists and non-scientists. The Author Summary will be included as part of the manuscript to immediately follow the Abstract in published articles. We ask that all authors of research articles that are revised following peer-review write a short non-technical summary of their research for non-expert readers. Read the figure guidelines for more information about figure requirements at revision. Upload a TIFF or EPS file for each figure if you have not already done so. Upload a clean copy of your revised manuscript that does not show your changes. Upload this as a "Revised Article with Changes Highlighted” file. The best way to show these changes is the “Track Changes” option in Microsoft Word. Include a marked-up copy of your manuscript file showing the changes you have made since the original submission. Upload this document as a “Response to reviewers” file. Remember, if you choose to publish the peer review history of your manuscript, your response to reviewers will appear online alongside the final article. Include your responses to all the reviewers’ and editors’ comments and list the changes you have made to the manuscript. Download the formatting checklist (PDF).Īddress the specific points made by each reviewer. We recommend that you refer to our checklist of formatting requirements before resubmitting in order to expedite your manuscript through the technical checks. The journal performs technical checks when you resubmit your manuscript to ensure that it meets our formatting and publishing requirements.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |