Scholarly euphemisms

'Three groups were carefully chosen for close examination", i.e. the results of all the others didn't fit in with the writer's beliefs.

Or perhaps, "typical results are displayed", i.e. the results displayed are the best the author could manage to marshal in the time available.

Consider also the following phrases which are in wide scholarly use today -

"there is clear and indisputable evidence", i.e. at least one other study exists which roughly agrees with the author's present results.

"Two samples were selected for detailed study", i.e. the remainder were discarded because they did not seem to fit the author's preconceptions.

"The most reliable results are to be found in Atkin's paper of 1963", i.e. Atkins was a previous student or work colleague of the author.

And as to concluding statements we often encounter the following:- "hopefully this paper will stimulate more work in the field", i.e. the author's paper left much to be desired as do all the other papers on the subject.

"It seems quite clear that much more work is still required before we fully understand the issues involved", i.e. the writer still does not fully understand the results but needs to empire build.

"The implications of our study should be interpreted with care", i.e. the data the author relied on varied in terms of measurement values as well as across time and space.

"We note that causality may be complicated", i.e. the author was lost when it came to unraveling cause and effect.

"It is possible that our source material did not capture the full range of …", i.e. the authors did not consult original source material but relied on recently published papers.

Finally, it is clear that we now live in a world replete with euphemisms and have learnt how not to say what we really mean.