50 wordy academic phrases and the short versions journals prefer.
Waraq · July 20, 2026 · WRITING IN ENGLISH
Wordy academic phrases are stock expressions that add words without adding
meaning, and each one has a short equivalent journals prefer: due to the fact that becomes because, in order to becomes to, and it is important to note that usually becomes nothing at all. Swapping them is
not a matter of taste. Editing rulebooks encode concision as an instruction
with a defined fix, which is why the fifty swaps below are organized the
way an editor reads a submission: by section, from the opening paragraph to
the limitations.
Why does wordiness cost you at the desk stage?
An editor decides whether your paper goes out to reviewers on one fast read, and inflated phrasing slows that read in a way the editor charges to the writing, not to the science. A manuscript full of stock padding also signals the amount of editing the journal would have to absorb later, and editors price that in. The pattern belongs on the list of desk rejections you can see coming because it is visible on page one, before anyone reaches your methods.
Waraq's built-in rule library carries this
check as style.concision.wordy ("Wordy phrase"), and its full text is one
line: "Replace wordy phrases with concise equivalents." That is the same
shape as a rule about a missing ethics statement: a violation with a known
fix, not a stylistic mood. Once you treat concision that way, the fix stops
being a rewrite and becomes a lookup.
Which framing phrases inflate an introduction?
Introduction bloat concentrates in throat-clearing: phrases that announce a topic instead of stating it. Twelve swaps cover most of it.
| Wordy | Shorter |
|---|---|
| due to the fact that | because |
| in light of the fact that | because |
| owing to the fact that | because |
| a considerable amount of | much |
| the vast majority of | most |
| at the present time | now |
| in the field of oncology | in oncology |
| in the context of | in |
| with regard to | for or about |
| is widely considered to be | is, with a citation |
| there is a growing body of literature that suggests | name the two or three studies |
| it has been shown that | state the finding, then cite it |
The three the fact that variants earn their own rows because they are the
most common single offender, and the cut is always the same word. Some of
the rest is imported wholesale from a first language, where a formal
connector is the polite default. If your introductions keep producing these
shapes, the underlying issue may be one of the
signs your paper reads like a translation,
and it is worth fixing at that level rather than swap by swap.
Which connectors bloat methods and results?
Methods wordiness hides verbs inside noun phrases, and results wordiness
adds verdict language to numbers that already speak. A nominalization is a
verb frozen into a noun, analyzed becoming conducted an analysis of,
and the methods section attracts them like nothing else in the paper.
| Wordy | Shorter |
|---|---|
| in order to | to |
| for the purpose of | for |
| a total of 412 patients | 412 patients |
| conducted an analysis of | analyzed |
| made a comparison between | compared |
| performed an assessment of | assessed |
| during the course of | during |
| in close proximity to | near |
| on a daily basis | daily |
| prior to | before |
| subsequent to | after |
| utilized | used |
| was found to be significant | was significant |
| with the exception of | except for |
Fourteen swaps, and every one of them survives the strictest reviewer, because none of these cuts changes what you did or what you found. The methods section is also where the swaps compound fastest. A procedure described forty times at three extra words each is a hundred wasted words in one section.
Which discussion and limitation phrases can you shorten?
Discussion wordiness is mostly double hedging and inflated contrast. The hedge itself is doing real work; the second hedge stacked on top of it is padding.
| Wordy | Shorter |
|---|---|
| it is possible that this may indicate | this may indicate |
| these findings would seem to suggest | these findings suggest |
| despite the fact that | although |
| in spite of the fact that | although |
| has the potential to | may or can |
| plays an important role in | the specific verb: raises, delays, predicts |
| in comparison with | compared with |
| whether or not | whether |
| one of the main limitations of the present study is | the main limitation is |
| it could be argued that | make the argument, or attribute it |
| there is a need for further research on | name the study you would run next |
| due to limitations in sample size | because the sample was small |
The first two rows sit where concision overlaps with hedging, which is a
different problem. A single may or suggests is calibration, and cutting
it would change your claim. Two hedges on one claim is wordiness wearing
caution as a costume. The dividing line is covered in detail in
hedging language in academic writing:
one hedge per claim, chosen to match the evidence.
Which phrases can you delete with no replacement?
Twelve phrases delete cleanly because the sentence already says whatever they announce. Nothing goes in their place.
| Delete | Why it costs nothing |
|---|---|
| it is important to note that | if it mattered less, you would not be writing it |
| it should be noted that | same announcement, same cut |
| it is worth mentioning that | the mention is the sentence that follows |
| it is interesting to observe that | interest is the reader's call, not yours |
| as a matter of fact | the sentence is already stating a fact |
| needless to say | then it does not need saying |
| it goes without saying that | see the row above |
| in the process of | the verb after it survives alone: validating, not in the process of validating |
| as already stated above | if the reader needs the repeat, restructure instead |
| for all intents and purposes | it hedges nothing measurable |
| in a very real sense | a sense is either real or not worth invoking |
| basically | the sentence means the same without it |
Read your abstract and your first page against this table before anything else. Announcement phrases cluster at openings, exactly where the desk editor is reading most closely.
How do you run a concision pass across a full manuscript?
Run it as its own pass with tracked changes on, searching for phrase
families rather than rereading for feel. Feel is unreliable by draft five;
search is not. Query the fact that and you catch three rows of the first
table at once. Query a total of, in order to, prior to, it is, and
there is a need and you have covered the highest-frequency offenders in
minutes. Each accepted change is small, two to five words, and a full
manuscript typically yields dozens of them.
Tracked changes turn the pass into evidence. When a reviewer has written
that
the English needs improvement,
a response letter that reports the count, with each edit answering to
style.concision.wordy by name, replaces a vague promise with visible
work. A rule-based manuscript review such as Waraq runs the
same pass across the whole file in one go, flagging every hit against that
rule so the cited list arrives ready for the letter.
Fifty phrases, one rule, one search-driven pass. The paper that comes out the other side is shorter by a few hundred words and reads faster at exactly the stage where reading speed decides your fate.