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BS, there’s not enough room for this sort of detail, you’d get ‘as described previously in [1-4, 9, 84, 86, 150-160, unpublished observations]’ half of which are unaccessible journals, out of print book chapters, and abstracts in German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.
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
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_(psychology)?wprov=sfla1
what the fuck is kapwing and why do i see their watermark so often?
Your worst nightmare.
