First off, a big thank you to Dan for allowing me to serve as a guest here at the Faculty Lounge. I'm honored to participate in this wonderful community. So thank you very much for having me.
Today I was talking with a good friend of mine about the art of titling law review articles. Personally, I've often thought that it would be quite interesting to enter all the law review titles (from some discrete time period) in a database and see which key words pop up the most often. I'm thinking "normative" and "heuristic" would have to be up there . . .
All this begs the question: How do we go about titling our law review articles? More specifically -- Should we try to sound fancy? Should we try to be cute? Should we try to write something that will simply sound impressive to the law review editors we hope to persuade to publish our work?
A relatively recent article by Professors Leah Christensen and Julie Oseid, entitled "Navigating the Law Review Article Selection Process" (available on SSRN here) found that, in some cases, a "catchy" title can work against you with law review editors.
So, I'm curious. How do you go about titling your articles? And, other than to simply describe what the article is about, what other motivations influence the titles you ultimately select?