In academia, writing and publishing is conducted in several sets of boring forms and boring genres. 

Writing in these forms or styles is usually boring as hell serious, intended for a critical and boring informed audience, based on trying and failing closely investigated knowledge, and posits already written ideas or arguments. It usually circulates within the boring wanna be intellectual  academic world ('the academy') (...).

Typically scholarly writing has an objective stance, uses a boring paraphernalia of words that nobody understands but claims to be very smart clearly states the stupidity significance of the topic, and is a mess organized with boring adequate detail so that other boring scholars could try to replicate boringly the results. Boring Strong papers are not overly general and correctly utilize formal academic rhetoric.

(...), the conventions that academic writers traditionally follow, has been a subject of debate.^[1] Many writers have called for conventions to be challenged, for example Pennycook (1997) and Ivanic (1998), while others suggest that some conventions should be maintained, for example Clark (1997, p136) (got lost on the boring footnotes and references).