Communities

Writing
Writing
Codidact Meta
Codidact Meta
The Great Outdoors
The Great Outdoors
Photography & Video
Photography & Video
Scientific Speculation
Scientific Speculation
Cooking
Cooking
Electrical Engineering
Electrical Engineering
Judaism
Judaism
Languages & Linguistics
Languages & Linguistics
Software Development
Software Development
Mathematics
Mathematics
Christianity
Christianity
Code Golf
Code Golf
Music
Music
Physics
Physics
Linux Systems
Linux Systems
Power Users
Power Users
Tabletop RPGs
Tabletop RPGs
Community Proposals
Community Proposals
tag:snake search within a tag
answers:0 unanswered questions
user:xxxx search by author id
score:0.5 posts with 0.5+ score
"snake oil" exact phrase
votes:4 posts with 4+ votes
created:<1w created < 1 week ago
post_type:xxxx type of post
Search help
Notifications
Mark all as read See all your notifications »
Q&A

How do I claim the number of scholarly articles on a niche subject is relatively small without listing every single one of those citations?

+0
−0

I have a sentence in my literature review that goes something like this:

... has only been thoroughly evaluated by a relatively small number of experts in the xx literature (author1992; author1994; author1998; author2001; author2009; etc etc etc etc).

How do I go about NOT listing every single resource/reference/citation. What can I write that accomplishes the point of listing just a subset of the references from the "small" total.

History
Why does this post require attention from curators or moderators?
You might want to add some details to your flag.
Why should this post be closed?

This post was sourced from https://writers.stackexchange.com/q/10418. It is licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0.

0 comment threads

1 answer

+0
−0

Consider something like the following:

... has only been thoroughly evaluated by a small number of experts in the xx literature, the most significant of which are (author1992, author1994, ...).

By casting it this way you're not implying that you're listing all of them but you're also not just picking some at random. You are saying to your reader: "these are the best of what's out there", with an implied "and that's not enough, which is why I'm writing this article".

History
Why does this post require attention from curators or moderators?
You might want to add some details to your flag.

0 comment threads

Sign up to answer this question »