Add more resources and studies to flaky tests page in docs - #13250

Two questions:

• for a PR like this, should I create and issue first and attach change logs?
• I have some other studies that aren't publically available in PDF form (as in you need access from the journal publishers), would it be helpful to include them still? Some of them are quite good.

Thanks! 🙇

for a PR like this, should I create and issue first and attach change logs?

No need, but if you want, you can add a 13250.doc.rst file to CHANGELOG -- but small changes like this are probably not worth it.

I have some other studies that aren't publically available in PDF form (as in you need access from the journal publishers), would it be helpful to include them still? Some of them are quite good.

I think it is fine, thanks! Perhaps add a *(requires account at X)* or *(paid access)* (something like that) to the end to warn readers.

Hey, I've fixed up the duplicate link. I can access the Divaportal link fine; it might be a case where the paper restricts access by region, but I can't seem to pinpoint it.

@nicoddemus as many of these are whitepapers, would it make sense to integrate sphinxcontrib-bibtex?

@nicoddemus as many of these are whitepapers, would it make sense to integrate sphinxcontrib-bibtex?

Sounds interesting for sure, but that would better be done in a separate PR I think. 👍

Backport to 8.3.x: 💚 backport PR created

✅ Backport PR branch: patchback/backports/8.3.x/9f3c4d11d9b162d0926e9a3ae57ec6f262362d73/pr-13250

Backported as #13259

🤖 @patchback
I'm built with octomachinery and
my source is open — https://github.com/sanitizers/patchback-github-app.

Great, thanks for reviewing these. @nicoddemus and @webknjaz