zusammenfassend

20:35 Oct 11, 2011 

Ah! Now I get it, makes sense, sorry ;)

20:26 Oct 11, 2011 

I chose "1990" just as an example ( could have chosen 1999, 98 etc) simply because I figured that I would get more relevant hits with a date earlier than 2009.

20:22 Oct 11, 2011 

@ Johanna - bit confused, why did you google "1990"?! have I missed something?
I agree with you and Helen tho, dont really see the problem, there are semi-colons between each publication - to me if zusammenfassend specifically belonged to the other two thered be a comma or some other "hinweis" - I dont see the need to add any more to the meaning - (original?) studies/research on the subject can be found in Barkley and co. and Lauth and Minsel discuss the subject in their 2009 edition as part of their umfassenden Ueberblick of international research - its up to the author to be more exact if they have not read any of these publications or want to say something else!

17:24 Oct 11, 2011 

I searched google books for: "zusammenfassend * und * 1990 "; the results show that Helen's suggestion seem to be spot on.

16:12 Oct 11, 2011 

but my point is that 'zusammenfassend' does not mean what you say. I have never come across an abbreviation for such a circumstance. I have, on the other hand, seen people say that they are aware of the existence of something which they have not been able to access - they would not use 'zusammenfassend' in such a circumstance. Lack of access to something does not mean, and never has meant, to summarize.

16:09 Oct 11, 2011 

I came across this phenomenon in what seemed to be a chapter of a PhD paper. Misquotation is actually there in the literature field. I mean only summerasing (i.e. 'X claimed that...') and actually drawing the wrong conclusion or drawing sentences out of context. It is possible that the work/paper is not available in your library, that you can't get it anymore, that you as a reasearcher don't have time and consult a summarising work, I don't know. Point is, it is possible. Otherwise there wouldn't be an abbreviation for it, would there?

15:54 Oct 11, 2011 

A review of the literature is a specific thing and distinct from a summary of the research. There is an awful lot of extrapolation going on here.

15:52 Oct 11, 2011 

I'm not saying they can't understand it. I'm just saying that it may be easier to read one German paper which cites papers written in English than to read the original English. That's what literature reviews are for - people who don't have the time and/or ability to read everything that's been written.

15:43 Oct 11, 2011 

Well, in all my years as an academic and/or translator of academic work, I have never once come across such a case. You may have. What makes you think that this particular author cannot understand the text in question?

15:41 Oct 11, 2011 

You say "I have never come across an academic who would cite or refer readers to a text without explicit knowledge of that text."

Actually it's perfectly common practice, as my reference shows. One obvious example is when you don't speak the language of the original text.

13:21 Oct 11, 2011 

there are a few references to a publication by the 2 authors described as "reviews of" adhs... or "a review"..