Interesting papers usually transgress the status quo, but there are limits on how far transgression can go. Papers that break too many substantive, methodological, or theoretical rules are more likely to be called flaky or wrongheaded than interesting. At minimum, interesting papers need to conform to genre constraints. Empirical papers need to flow from introduction to problem statement to methods to data and then to a discussion and conclusions. Theoretical papers need to work through implications of propositions and consider counterarguments. In both cases, readers expect authors to warrant their claims in ways that scholars find legitimate: with logic, mathematical models, data, and counterfacutals, for example. Without such warrants, a paper too closely resembles opinion, and when it seems to be mere opinion, a paper is unlikely to survive academic skepticism long enough to have a chance to be considered interesting.