Bonus points (BPs) for when you get entire sentences full of abbreviations (SFOA). Even more BPs when you get SFOA with abbreviations containing abbreviations within them (SWACAWT). I really hate SWACAWTs.
I call BS, there's not enough room for this sort of detail, you'd get 'as described previously in [1-4, 9, 84, 86, 150-160, unpublished observations]' half of which are unaccessible journals, out of print book chapters, and abstracts in German
I only encountered once, but when it happened I had to realize how old science field may have been different.
The exact detail I was looking for should be in [20] ... but "[20] to be published" (presumably by the same author). I couldn't find any papers by author's name other than that but the author was so sure getting published.
My favorite is recursive bad citations in the method section. As in, citing a paper that cited a previous paper that itself cited a previous paper that cited an abstract with no detailed methodology whatsoever, leaving the true methods a mystery unless you get the senior author to reply to emails.
Bonus points (BPs) for when you get entire sentences full of abbreviations (SFOA). Even more BPs when you get SFOA with abbreviations containing abbreviations within them (SWACAWT). I really hate SWACAWTs.
SWACs for short
SWACFS
S
FFCKs sake
I call BS, there's not enough room for this sort of detail, you'd get 'as described previously in [1-4, 9, 84, 86, 150-160, unpublished observations]' half of which are unaccessible journals, out of print book chapters, and abstracts in German
I only encountered once, but when it happened I had to realize how old science field may have been different. The exact detail I was looking for should be in [20] ... but "[20] to be published" (presumably by the same author). I couldn't find any papers by author's name other than that but the author was so sure getting published.
My favorite is recursive bad citations in the method section. As in, citing a paper that cited a previous paper that itself cited a previous paper that cited an abstract with no detailed methodology whatsoever, leaving the true methods a mystery unless you get the senior author to reply to emails.
Goddamn it, why is academia so indecipherable and yet so relatable??
Yes... different field... surely
More like subfield... Or subsubfeild... Paper you didn't write?
Implying you understand the papers you wrote.
Implying that you understand how to write.
Ah yes, the two genders: erect and flaccid
I don't care how erect you think you are! You were born flaccid and we raised you flaccid!
These gliberals with their new genders… back in my day greebles only had two genders, PLOK and GLIP!!!
First they take the dingle bop and they smooth it out with a bunch of shleem.
But why did they cut the fleeb?
My best guess is that when they cut the fleeb, it makes more fleebs, which they can then use to make more plumbuses (plumbi?)
Is this a real paper? Please tell me it is.
I forgot to link. Thanks for the reminder. It's actually in several papers as a known methodology!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greeble_%28psychology%29?wprov=sfla1
Science is awesome
Why do they all have boners
Your nose is a boner
what the fuck is kapwing and why do i see their watermark so often?
Your worst nightmare.
AI video and content creator? Not sure why it’s on a meme/still image. Not familiar with it.
I see Baby Yoda in a few of these.
I thought all of them are Yodas, some with a boner.
Plok Osmit packin a magnum chode
Different field? More like a different child field of my root field
Different child field? This is like my first two read-throughs of a new paper in my own specialization!
Freaking glips with their silly uphorns!
Downhorn for life! Long live plok!
form
These greebles made some very interesting vases with lids I see
I see the word Plok,
I go listen to the Boss Theme.
Simple as
Wah-ha-ha-ha-ha-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho!
No one will be able to make the SNES sound chip their total bìtch like Tim Follin