On four common Nigerian project topics, studies from Nigerian institutions account for between 0.6 and 7.4 per cent of the world’s literature. That ratio is the most useful number a Chapter Two can carry, because it converts the vaguest sentence in Nigerian project writing — “few studies have been carried out in the Nigerian context” — into a claim with evidence behind it.
The four worked counts
Each row below is a single query against the OpenAlex index, run on 17 August 2026, restricted to works published from 2016 onward whose title or abstract matches the phrase. The Nigerian column additionally restricts to works with at least one Nigerian institutional affiliation.
| Topic phrase | Nigerian-affiliated works | Works worldwide | Nigerian share | Source and date |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| youth unemployment | 921 | 12,493 | 7.4% | OpenAlex, 17 Aug 2026 |
| entrepreneurship education | 1,229 | 43,556 | 2.8% | OpenAlex, 17 Aug 2026 |
| financial inclusion | 1,648 | 63,653 | 2.6% | OpenAlex, 17 Aug 2026 |
| e-learning | 1,263 | 215,782 | 0.6% | OpenAlex, 17 Aug 2026 |
Two of those rows deserve a pause.
Youth unemployment is the outlier at 7.4 per cent, nearly three times the share of the next topic. That is what you would expect of a subject the country has an unusual amount of direct experience with, and it means a student choosing this topic is entering a genuinely crowded local field rather than an empty one.
E-learning is the lowest at 0.6 per cent, and its world total is misleading. 215,782 global hits reflects a term used across every discipline and every country, much of it in senses that have nothing to do with your study. A low share against an enormous and loosely defined world total is weaker evidence than a low share against a tight one. That is a caution about the method, not a finding about the topic.
Why counting beats asserting
Every Nigerian project template asks Chapter Two to end on a gap. Most undergraduate manuscripts discharge that requirement with a sentence like “however, limited studies have been carried out in Nigeria”, and every panel member has read that sentence several hundred times.
The question that follows is always the same: how do you know? Without a count, the honest answer is that you searched for a while and did not find much, which is indistinguishable from not having searched properly. With a count, you can say that 921 of 12,493 indexed studies on the topic since 2016 carry a Nigerian affiliation, name the index and the date, and move on.
The procedure, in five steps
- Reduce your topic to one or two phrases. Not the whole title. “Financial inclusion”, not “The effect of financial inclusion on the growth of small and medium scale enterprises in Auchi metropolis”.
- Count the world. Search the phrase in title and abstract, restricted to a sensible period — the last ten years is defensible in most fields.
- Count Nigeria. Add the country filter for author institutions. This filters on where the researchers are, not on whether the paper mentions Nigeria, which is exactly what a plain keyword search cannot do.
- Divide. The share is more meaningful than either raw number, because it controls for how large the field is.
- Record the query, the date and both counts in your search log, then repeat for any second phrase your topic needs.
Do this at topic-selection stage, not in the week you write Chapter Two. A count of four on your exact topic tells you something urgent about scope while there is still time to act on it, and a count in the thousands tells you to narrow before your supervisor does it for you.
The instrument caveat, and it is a large one
The counts above use a title and abstract match. A general relevance search over the full record returns very different numbers for the same phrase: on financial inclusion, the loose search returned 18,560 Nigerian works where the title-and-abstract match returned 1,648 — a factor of eleven.
Neither number is wrong; they answer different questions. The loose search finds anything the index considers relevant, including papers that merely cite financial-inclusion research in passing. The tight search finds papers that are actually about it. For a gap statement you want the tight one, and you must say which you used.
Three further limits to state plainly if you report a count in your manuscript.
- Indexing is incomplete. Work published in Nigerian journals that are not indexed in the source you queried will not appear, and that is a real volume of research. A count is a floor, not a census.
- Unpublished projects are invisible. Approved undergraduate and master’s projects sitting in departmental libraries are in no bibliographic index at all. For the purpose of not duplicating work, those are the ones most likely to be identical to your plan, because they came from a department like yours.
- Phrasing decides the answer. “Youth unemployment”, “graduate unemployment” and “joblessness among young people” describe overlapping things and return different counts. Run each and report all of them rather than picking the smallest.
Because of the second limit in particular, a count supplements searching your own departmental library and Nigerian journals rather than replacing either. Whichever sources you use, name them and the period covered — and keep the references themselves organised as you go, which is what a reference manager is for, as compared in the guide to Mendeley and Zotero for Nigerian students.
What the number does not license you to say
A low count is not a finding, and it is not automatically a justification. Three claims to avoid.
“No studies exist.” Almost never true, and one query by a panel member can disprove it. Say “few indexed studies”, give the number, and name the index.
“This is the first study of its kind.” The strongest form of overreach available to an undergraduate, and it is unnecessary. A project can be worth doing without being unprecedented.
“The topic is under-researched, therefore my study is important.” Scarcity alone is not importance; some topics are little studied because they matter little. The gap statement has to say why the missing work is worth doing, not merely that it is missing.
Turning the count into the sentence Chapter Two needs
The gap statement is the last paragraph of your review, and with a count in hand it writes itself.
Template: “A search of the OpenAlex index conducted on [date] returned [world count] works published since [year] whose title or abstract concerned [topic], of which [Nigerian count] carried a Nigerian institutional affiliation. Of those, the reviewed studies examined [what has been done], predominantly among [what population, in what setting]. None examined [your variable combination] among [your population] in [your locale], which is the gap the present study addresses.”
Three things that template does. It names the instrument and the date, so the claim is checkable. It distinguishes what exists from what is missing, rather than implying nothing exists. And it lands on your own population and locale, which is where almost every legitimate undergraduate contribution actually lives — you are rarely the first person to study the variable, and you are frequently the first to study it in your local government area.
How that paragraph fits into the rest of the chapter, and how to synthesise the studies you did find rather than stacking summaries, is set out in the guide to writing Chapter Two section by section. Every source you name in it has to appear correctly in your reference list, following the conventions in referencing a Nigerian university project in APA. And for the wider context of how much Nigerian research exists in total, see how much research Nigerian universities publish.
Write the gap once, and keep it attached to the search that proves it
Tesify holds your chapters in the structure your department expects and keeps each citation tied to the source you actually opened, so the gap statement in Chapter Two and the sources behind it never drift apart. Over 9,000 students have used it to write more than 15,000 chapters, and every word is still written by you.
Frequently asked questions
How do I know if my project topic has already been studied?
Count it. Search your topic phrase in title and abstract across a bibliographic index, once worldwide and once filtered to Nigerian institutions, over a fixed period, and record both numbers with the date. Then search your own departmental library separately for projects the index does not cover.
How many Nigerian studies exist on a typical project topic?
On the four topics counted here, Nigerian-affiliated work made up between 0.6 and 7.4 per cent of the world total since 2016 — 921 works on youth unemployment against 12,493 worldwide, and 1,648 on financial inclusion against 63,653.
Is it a problem if many studies already exist?
No. A well-studied variable gives you a validated instrument, a settled framework and findings to compare against. What you need is a population, setting or variable combination that has not been examined, not an untouched subject.
Can I say no studies exist on my topic?
Avoid it. Say few indexed studies exist, give the count, name the index and the date. Absolute claims are disproved by one query and they cost you credibility on everything else in the chapter.
Does a low count mean my topic is good?
Not by itself. Some topics are little studied because they are hard to research or of limited consequence. Your justification has to explain why the missing work matters, not just that it is missing.
Do unpublished projects count as existing studies?
For the purpose of not duplicating work, absolutely — and they are the most likely to match your plan, because they came from a department like yours. They are invisible to bibliographic indexes, so search your departmental library separately.
What period should I count over?
The last ten years is defensible in most fields and matches the recency most Nigerian templates expect in the empirical review. State the period alongside the count; a number without a date range means nothing.
Why did I get two very different counts for the same phrase?
Because a general relevance search and a title-and-abstract match are different queries. The loose search returned 18,560 Nigerian works on financial inclusion where the tight one returned 1,648. Use the tight one for a gap claim and say so.
Should the count go in Chapter One or Chapter Two?
Chapter Two, in the summary of literature or gap section. A brief version can support the background in Chapter One, but the counted evidence belongs with the review it summarises.
Do I have to cite the database itself?
Yes, if you report a count from it. Name the index, the query, the filters and the date of access, exactly as you would for any other data source, so the number can be reproduced.
My topic returns thousands of Nigerian studies. What now?
Narrow it and count again. Add the population, the sector or the locale and re-run the query. The level of narrowing at which the number drops sharply is usually where your contribution sits.
