100 Examples of sentences containing the common noun "ibidem"

Definition

"Ibidem" is a Latin term used in academic and scholarly writing to refer to a source that has been cited previously in the same document. It indicates that the information presented is from the same work as the last citation, allowing for concise referencing without repeating the full citation details.

Synonyms

• Same source
• The same
• In the same place
• As above

Antonyms

• Different source
• New source
• Distinct

Examples

1. The studies conducted by Smith (2020) were significant, and ibidem revealed similar results in subsequent trials.
2. The historical context is outlined in Johnson (2019); ibidem provides further details on the cultural impact.
3. The findings in Taylor (2021) were groundbreaking; ibidem also discussed their implications for future research.
4. The economic analysis by Lee (2022) was comprehensive, and ibidem highlighted additional factors affecting the market.
5. The methodology was clearly defined by Patel (2020), and ibidem addressed the limitations of the study.
6. The results of the experiment were promising; ibidem suggested avenues for further investigation.
7. The theories proposed by Brown (2021) were innovative, and ibidem challenged existing paradigms.
8. The review by Clark (2018) offered valuable insights; ibidem also summarized the key arguments.
9. The data was meticulously collected as noted by Garcia (2023); ibidem ensured accuracy in reporting.
10. The previous research by Evans (2020) was foundational, and ibidem built upon those principles.
11. The case study presented by White (2019) was enlightening; ibidem illustrated its relevance to modern practices.
12. The conclusions drawn by Kim (2022) were compelling, and ibidem emphasized the need for further exploration.
13. The article by Thompson (2020) was influential; ibidem prompted a series of follow-up studies.
14. The observations made by Davis (2021) were crucial, and ibidem expanded on those initial findings.
15. The guidelines set forth by Robinson (2019) were clear; ibidem offered additional recommendations.
16. The experiments conducted by Martinez (2022) were rigorous; ibidem provided a thorough analysis of the outcomes.
17. The previous citation by Lewis (2020) was informative; ibidem reiterated the importance of the findings.
18. The theories discussed by Wilson (2018) were groundbreaking, and ibidem further explored their implications.
19. The results published by Young (2021) were unexpected; ibidem suggested alternative interpretations.
20. The literature review by Hall (2023) was comprehensive; ibidem included a variety of perspectives.
21. The historical analysis by King (2020) was robust; ibidem revealed additional context.
22. The experiment documented by Allen (2019) was pivotal; ibidem contributed to the field's understanding.
23. The statistical methods employed by Wright (2022) were advanced; ibidem highlighted their significance.
24. The ethical considerations outlined by Scott (2021) were essential; ibidem provided a framework for discussion.
25. The foundational work by Green (2020) was influential; ibidem served as a reference point for further studies.
26. The previous analysis by Adams (2019) was insightful; ibidem offered a fresh perspective.
27. The survey results from Perez (2023) were telling; ibidem indicated trends over time.
28. The theoretical framework proposed by Nelson (2020) was innovative; ibidem laid the groundwork for future research.
29. The observations made by Turner (2021) were noteworthy; ibidem encouraged additional inquiry.
30. The comprehensive study by Carter (2019) yielded significant data; ibidem reinforced the findings.
31. The conclusions reached by Mitchell (2022) were striking; ibidem prompted further examination.
32. The principles outlined by Collins (2020) were foundational; ibidem underscored their relevance.
33. The research conducted by Edwards (2019) was thorough; ibidem presented a balanced view.
34. The findings reported by Morris (2021) were significant; ibidem called for further investigation.
35. The arguments made by Reed (2023) were persuasive; ibidem provided additional evidence.
36. The survey by Murphy (2020) was illuminating; ibidem revealed important patterns.
37. The in-depth analysis by Cook (2019) was exemplary; ibidem set a standard for future studies.
38. The research findings by Bell (2022) were groundbreaking; ibidem encouraged new lines of inquiry.
39. The theoretical insights provided by Rivera (2021) were valuable; ibidem added depth to the discussion.
40. The data collected by Lopez (2020) was critical; ibidem informed the overall conclusions.
41. The previous findings by Foster (2019) were instrumental; ibidem validated the initial hypotheses.
42. The theoretical contributions by Gomez (2022) were significant; ibidem bridged gaps in the literature.
43. The review article by Simmons (2021) was comprehensive; ibidem synthesized key arguments.
44. The implications discussed by Hughes (2020) were profound; ibidem expanded on those themes.
45. The methods used by Baker (2019) were innovative; ibidem demonstrated their applicability.
46. The conclusions presented by Bennett (2022) were enlightening; ibidem encouraged further exploration.
47. The historical context provided by Grant (2021) was critical; ibidem added layers to the analysis.
48. The data analysis performed by Price (2020) was thorough; ibidem confirmed the initial findings.
49. The ethical issues raised by Hughes (2021) were pressing; ibidem prompted a wider discussion.
50. The results from Morgan (2019) were compelling; ibidem spurred additional research.
51. The theoretical framework outlined by Sanchez (2022) was robust; ibidem guided future investigations.
52. The methodology explained by Morales (2021) was meticulous; ibidem ensured validity.
53. The previous study by Ortiz (2020) was foundational; ibidem served as a reference for others.
54. The literature cited by Kim (2019) was extensive; ibidem provided a solid background.
55. The arguments put forth by Lee (2022) were provocative; ibidem sparked debate.
56. The findings presented by Nguyen (2021) were enlightening; ibidem validated previous research.
57. The survey conducted by Phillips (2020) was revealing; ibidem highlighted key trends.
58. The analysis by Hunt (2019) was thorough; ibidem emphasized the importance of context.
59. The conclusions reached by King (2022) were significant; ibidem encouraged future studies.
60. The review by Torres (2021) was comprehensive; ibidem synthesized multiple perspectives.
61. The experiments conducted by Webb (2020) were innovative; ibidem demonstrated their efficacy.
62. The ethical considerations discussed by Reed (2019) were crucial; ibidem provided a framework for practice.
63. The findings reported by Diaz (2022) were intriguing; ibidem suggested potential implications.
64. The research conducted by Foster (2021) was illuminating; ibidem prompted further inquiry.
65. The theoretical insights provided by Lee (2020) were essential; ibidem highlighted gaps in existing literature.
66. The survey results from Graham (2019) were compelling; ibidem indicated shifts in public opinion.
67. The case study presented by Brooks (2022) was informative; ibidem illustrated practical applications.
68. The experiment detailed by Ward (2021) was groundbreaking; ibidem validated the results.
69. The analysis by Carter (2020) was comprehensive; ibidem underscored the significance of findings.
70. The implications discussed by Palmer (2019) were profound; ibidem encouraged further thought.
71. The conclusions reached by Ross (2022) were enlightening; ibidem prompted new research avenues.
72. The literature reviewed by Rivera (2021) was extensive; ibidem provided context for the discussion.
73. The methodology employed by Sanders (2020) was rigorous; ibidem ensured reliability.
74. The findings by Powell (2019) were significant; ibidem called for expanded research.
75. The theoretical framework proposed by Reed (2022) was innovative; ibidem guided future inquiries.
76. The results from Turner (2021) were noteworthy; ibidem suggested further exploration of the topic.
77. The previous insights by Cooper (2020) were critical; ibidem reinforced the study's conclusions.
78. The analysis conducted by Reed (2019) was detailed; ibidem emphasized key takeaways.
79. The findings from Thompson (2022) were striking; ibidem prompted further investigation.
80. The theoretical contributions made by Nelson (2021) were significant; ibidem bridged existing gaps.
81. The survey conducted by Lee (2020) was revealing; ibidem indicated changing trends in behavior.
82. The historical context provided by White (2019) was crucial; ibidem added depth to the analysis.
83. The data analyzed by Johnson (2022) was pivotal; ibidem informed overarching conclusions.
84. The ethical issues raised by Morgan (2021) were pressing; ibidem sparked important discussions.
85. The comprehensive review by Hughes (2020) was enlightening; ibidem synthesized essential arguments.
86. The experiments reported by Bennett (2019) were groundbreaking; ibidem opened new avenues for research.
87. The theoretical insights provided by Kim (2022) were invaluable; ibidem guided future studies.
88. The findings from Parker (2021) were significant; ibidem highlighted key patterns.
89. The research conducted by Hall (2020) was thorough; ibidem reinforced previous conclusions.
90. The theories proposed by Martinez (2019) were essential; ibidem challenged existing beliefs.
91. The survey results from Wright (2022) were enlightening; ibidem underscored changing public sentiments.
92. The analysis provided by Collins (2021) was comprehensive; ibidem offered a fresh perspective.
93. The conclusions drawn by Scott (2020) were impactful; ibidem spurred further research.
94. The historical background discussed by Lewis (2019) was vital; ibidem enriched the overall narrative.
95. The findings presented by King (2022) were compelling; ibidem called for additional inquiry.
96. The literature reviewed by Hughes (2021) was extensive; ibidem offered valuable context.
97. The implications discussed by Bell (2020) were significant; ibidem prompted wider discussions.
98. The research conducted by Lopez (2019) was illuminating; ibidem validated previous studies.
99. The theoretical insights provided by Parker (2022) were critical; ibidem contributed to academic discourse.
100. The findings from Turner (2021) were intriguing; ibidem encouraged further exploration of the subject.