Surefire way to make a peer reviewer scratch their head

A few days ago, I checked my mailbox at the University and discovered in it a manuscript from a professor for whom I am doing research. The manuscript concerns recent developments in the field of Second Amendment jurisprudence (fascinating material, I must add) about the nature of the right to keep and bear arms. Is the right one that vests in individuals? Or does the right vest only in groups sanctioned by the state? Does the right protect private or public interests? Significant debate among scholars exists over the nature of this right and we may soon have a definitive answer to these questions if the Supreme Court deigns to elucidate on the meaning of the Amendment for the first time in the better part of a century.

Last night, I sat down and read the manuscript (a draft submission to the Stanford Law and Policy Review) instead of studying for my two remaining finals. I'm sure the neighbors must have been waked from their peaceful slumbers by my howls of laughter, though, as I read the document.

It's not that the article was riddled with errors or that the material was innately giggle-inducing. It's just that when reading a scholarly work reviewing other people's contributions to a historical and jurisprudential topic, you really don't expect to see the word 'pussy.'

Sort of hits you off guard.