Badly executed theory is responsible for 99.99 percent of instances in which I stare mouth-agape at an academic article. The other 0.01 percent is when I read something like this in a 1980 Taxon article on "Cladistics in Botany":
One only has to attend a symposium on classification with cladists to discover that in any given case there is usually no consensus of opinion as to what chosen character is apomorphic and which is not; the reason why there is disagreement is that a certain number of works have a certain classification "in their heads" already and, perhaps subconsciously, anticipate the result of a cladistic procedure. Other biologists disagree because they have something else in mind. This brings me to another nigger in the wood pile: what is character? (emphasis mine)
Not the technical answer the author wants, but my definition would include something about resisting the urge to refer to a critical lacuna as "another nigger in the wood pile." It might even extend to thinking the phrase itself offensive on its face, such that it ought not be thought, much less submitted to peer review.