I'll have more to say about this piece later today (or tomorrow), but this mistake is surely revealing about the intentions of the author:

But citable law review articles are vastly outnumbered, it appears, by head-scratchers. “There is evidence that law review articles have left terra firma to soar into outer space,” said the Supreme Court Justice Stephen G. Breyer in a 2008 speech.

Some articles are intra-academy tiffs that could interest only the combatants (like “What Is Wrong With Kamm’s and Scanlon’s Arguments Against Taurek” from The Journal of Ethics & Social Philosophy).

The Journal of Ethics and Social Philosophy is not a law review, it's a peer-reviewed philosophy journal.  And the article in question is written by a philosophy professor at the University of Vermont.  And it concerns arguments by three philosophers:  Kamm, Scanlon, and Taurek.  So what in the world does this have to do with what's in law review articles?  Nothing.

UPDATE:  Some colleagues have already written about the article, including Matt Bodie (St. Louis) and Larry Ribstein (Illinois).

ANOTHER:  More thoughts on the article here.