Greebles!

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
- 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BS, there's not enough room for this sort of detail, you'd get 'as described previously in [1-4, 9, 84, 86, 150-160, unpublished observations]' half of which are unaccessible journals, out of print book chapters, and abstracts in German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.

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?)