[Fomite]

Interestingly, one of the pieces of advice, about having a punchy title, is a double edged sword. There's some data suggesting papers with "clever" titles have an easier time getting published, but accumulate fewer lifetime citations.

Both of which are currency.

[eru]

I suspect there's a selection bias here.

Silly example: if I ever find out a prove saying that "P=NP", that will also be the title of my paper. No cleverness required to grab attention.

If I have a more pedestrian result, I'll think up some clever title.

[spookie]

As someone doing a literature review I can safely concur with this. Fancy titles often do not include the most obvious terms of what you are searching for, leading to fewer results from your query.

[karmakurtisaani]

The reason could be that clever titles add "novelty", but not much substance. Publishable, but not citable.

[Majromax]

> The reason could be that clever titles add "novelty", but not much substance.

Another reason might be that clever titles stand out as bold claims, working counter to the common practice of academic humility. If a paper seems to be downplaying its own significance, then why should a casual reader (or reviewer, at first impression) give it the benefit of the doubt?

That's not to say that papers should over-claim, and I suspect that doing so might lead to a harsh counter-reaction from reviewers who feel like they've been set up to have their time wasted. Nonetheless, "project confidence" might be good practice in academia as well as one's social life.