Your assignment is to prepare and submit a paper on discussion board. Discussion Board itative Sources Any piece of scholarly work that is considered to be distinctive has to be meet all the requirements as set out in academic writing rules and regulations. One of these requirements involves having relevant and authoritative sources. These sources are the ones that scholarly writers use to extract information which they use in their work. Authoritative sources are those that have unquestionable credibility and are based on well researched evidence. Authoritative sources are those that offer in-depth information regarding a specific topic that might be relevant to the scholarly work in question. 2. Distinguishing between authoritative sources and non-authoritative ones In order to write a good scholarly paper, one has to be aware of how to distinguish between authoritative sources and non-authoritative ones. One of the criteria that is used to distinguish between the two is the credibility of the author. In most authoritative sources, the authors’ credentials are normally given in detail. Other criteria that can be used to check the authoritativeness of source is evaluating the use of evidence and critical analysis of the evidence presented. 3. Examples of authoritative sources: Peer Reviewed journals UN research reports Audit reports for companies The information contained in these sources is normally based on evidence and through research. The authors of these documents are credible and the information contained in their findings is easily verifiable. Examples of non-authoritative sources: Personal blogs Social networks Free online encyclopedias such as Wikipedia These sources normally do not contain substantive information. The information found in these sources in mainly personal opinion which in many instances is not backed by any hard evidence (MW Consulting, 2008). Response on Postings The first posting contains a brief and clear definition of an authoritative source. it also gives a few examples of both authoritative and non-authoritative sources. The posting states that an authoritative source is a credible document which derives its credibility from some sort of evidence. The posting continues to state that the document has to be produced during the same time as the study and that its contents offer insight into a certain situation. In my view, this is a complete definition of an authoritative source. in the posting, the examples given for authoritative sources are: The declaration of Independence in the US history. a journal article reporting new research or findings and Native American history. I think that the first two examples are correct but the third example might not be an authoritative source since it does not specify where the information is from. The posting defines non-authoritative sources as those that have information regarding facts that have already been reported in an authoritative source. Examples given of non-authoritative sources include a history text book, evidence commentary and articles interpreting or reviewing previous findings (Nikkel, 2006). I think the definition and examples of non-authoritative sources are correct and clear. In the second posting the author gives the definition of authoritative sources and quotes the government definition. The definition is clearly presented and it is based on facts since there is a quotation from a trusted source (the government). The author of this posting goes on to clarify that many authoritative sources are normally reviewed and critiqued by professionals (Mabe and Amin, 2003). This posting also includes examples of authoritative sources and non-authoritative ones as well. Although the examples are correct, the author of this posting has not given reasons why the examples are considered to be either authoritative or non-authoritative. Another problem I found in this posting is that there is no definition for a non-authoritative source. References Mabe, M and Amin, M. 2003. Growth Dynamics of Scholarly and Scientific Journals. Scientometrics, vol. 51, Iss. 1, pp.147-162 MW Consulting. 2008. Peer Review in Scholarly Journals: Perspective of the Scholarly Community – an International Study. Bristol, Citeseer. Nikkel, B.J. 2006. Improving Evidence Acquisition from Live Network Sources. Digital Investigation. Vol. 3, Iss. 2, pp.