Since the early 2000s, the academic landscape has been reshaped by a global trend toward requiring publications in prestigious journals indexed in international citation databases (Tikhonova et al., 2023a; Haghani, 2023; Çakir et al., 2024). This movement has particularly affected emerging scholars, such as doctoral candidates. Amidst the prevailing 'publish or perish' culture, early-career researchers find themselves navigating a minefield of pressure. They face several hurdles in their quest for publication, including the lack of structured mentorship (Ramsay and Harries, 2014; Martin et al., 2022; Zhu et al., 2024), unfamiliarity with the nuances of publishing, absence of adequate support from their institutions, and language obstacles (Pinheiro et al., 2014; Lua and Hyland, 2016; Baxter and Neumann, 2023).

In tackling these difficulties, academic institutions have rolled out various forms of support. These measures range from publication workshops and retreats to extended writing support networks (Matthew et al., 2006; Rodríguez et al., 2022), courses focused on Language for Academic Purposes and Language for Research Publication Purposes (Li and Flowerdew, 2020; Cui et al., 2023), one-on-one mentoring programs (Linnehan, 2001; Busse et al., 2022), and ability to use multiple digital instruments and sources for writing (Strobl, 2019; Allagui, 2023; Chigbu et al., 2023).

This context highlights the critical need for brevity and clarity in academic writing, both in native languages and in English, underscoring the reality that many researchers are not fully prepared to publish in leading journals and engage their readers effectively. Despite substantial support efforts from academic institutions, these measures have not been sufficient to fully equip researchers with the necessary academic writing skills for the successful dissemination of scientific knowledge (Imani and Habil, 2012; Raitskaya and Tikhonova, 2022). A significant number of authors demonstrate a lack of expertise in academic writing, a fundamental skill for the effective communication of research results. Mere theoretical understanding of scientific communication's rhetoric does not suffice without the advanced ability to process and present academic information proficiently (Tikhonova et al., 2023b).

A prevalent issue among modern researchers is their use of unnecessary filler words in manuscript texts, often stemming from an inadequate grasp of Academic Search Engine Optimization (ASEO) principles (Tikhonova, 2023). This skill deficit highlights the multifaceted nature of academic publishing, where simply recognising the value of clarity and succinctness falls short of addressing the broader challenges. In the vast expanse of textual communication, the clarity and conciseness of written language stand as pillars of effective information transfer (Prasetyo, 2015; Li, 2022). However, the widespread issue of verbosity (with many researchers treating ‘wordiness’ as an exact synonym) across academic, professional, and creative texts poses a significant challenge to these principles. The issue of verbosity is not merely a stylistic concern but impacts readability, comprehension, and engagement, thus bearing profound implications for both the author and the audience (Barrass, 1996; Ibrahim et al., 2016). Despite its ubiquity, the mechanisms underlying verbosity, its effects on reader perception, and strategies for mitigation have only begun to be systematically explored in recent literature.

Historically, the study of verbosity has spanned several dimensions, including the psychological drivers behind superfluous word use, the impact of excessive wording on reader attention and memory retention, and the development of computational tools for detecting and reducing wordiness. Scholars like Abdollahi-Guilani et al. (2012), Ibrahim et al. (2016) and Boumeddane (2021) have delved into the semantic redundancies that characterise verbose texts, while Barrass (1996), Abdul-Raof (2006), and Śleszyńska (2021) have investigated the linguistic ignorance and rhetorical motivations that contribute to this phenomenon.

Compounding the issue is the lack of a unified understanding and terminology for text verbosity. This absence of consensus hinders the effective addressing of verbosity, which detracts from the readability, comprehension, and engagement of academic texts. Despite the significant implications of verbosity on text quality, existing research has only begun to unravel the complexity of this issue. This systematic scoping review aims to synthesise the body of research on text verbosity to elucidate the complexity of its causes, manifestations, and impacts. It seeks to bridge the gap between linguistic theory and practice, offering insights into the nuanced interplay between authorial intent and reader experience. The review is guided by several research questions: (1) What are the primary factors that contribute to verbosity in text? (2) How does verbosity affect the reader’s ability to understand and engage with the content? (3) What strategies or tools have proven effective in identifying and mitigating verbosity? Through a comprehensive analysis of existing literature and empirical studies, this review endeavours to offer a holistic understanding of text verbosity, providing valuable perspectives for writers, editors, educators, and software developers alike.

This systematic scoping review was executed through a structured process that included: 1) formulating the research question; 2) identifying relevant literature; 3) selecting appropriate studies for inclusion; 4) extracting key data from these studies; and 5) summarising and presenting the findings.

The selection criteria for the literature were divided into four categories, based on the suggested mnemonic (Population, Concept, and Context) for framing research questions in scoping reviews, with an additional focus on the type of publication (detailed in Table 1). The research materials encompassed a range of document types, including articles, reviews, book chapters, editorials, conference proceedings, workshops and website materials, university blogs all discussing the concept of text wordiness. The diverse genres of sources analysed reflect the limited breadth of research specifically dedicated to this topic.

Initially, a preliminary search on Google Scholar was carried out to pinpoint articles pertinent to our subject of interest. This search facilitated the identification of key terms and index terms closely associated with the topic, focusing on aspects such as the definition of text wordiness, its characteristics, causes, and consequences for both authors and readers, as well as the publication type, including reviews and original research. Using these terms, a comprehensive search strategy was crafted and executed on December 30, 2023.

In both Scopus and Google Scholar, the search was limited to the singular terms ‘wordiness’ and ‘verbosity’. This approach was adopted because combining terms or linking them with Boolean operators yielded an exceedingly low number of relevant sources, despite the expectation that the subject would be well-covered in contemporary academic writing research. This might indicate a lack of terminological consensus. For Google Scholar, only the first 100 results from each query were reviewed, based on the observation that subsequent entries increasingly diverged in relevance and alignment with the review's focus. Additionally, the reference lists of selected studies were examined to uncover further pertinent research.

From this search, 256 studies were retrieved (as shown in Figure 1).

The titles of the sourced references were catalogued in a Zotero library, with duplicate entries being removed via a reference management tool. This library, containing all potentially relevant titles, was then systematically reviewed by two reviewers in separate phases: (1) screening by title and abstract, followed by (2) assessment of the full text. At each stage, consensus meetings were held to deliberate on studies meeting the inclusion criteria. Any discrepancies between reviewers were resolved through consultation with a third reviewer.

Through the initial screening of titles and abstracts, 175 studies were excluded based on the predefined criteria. The full-text review of the remaining 81 studies led to the removal of those unavailable or duplicated and exclusion of 44 studies that did not meet the inclusion criteria, leaving 20 studies for incorporation into the survey. An additional ten sources were identified and included during the reference list screening process. For the list of 30 sources included in the review see Appendices 1,2 and 3.

Data extraction was conducted by two independent reviewers, with each being assigned half of the selected documents for initial analysis. The complete data set extracted by one reviewer was then cross-checked by the other to ensure accuracy and consistency. Any differences between reviewers were addressed and resolved through consensus meetings.

To systematically organise the extracted data, a standardised Excel spreadsheet was created. This spreadsheet captured a range of data points critical for our analysis, including: the name of the institution involved in the study; geographical coverage of the document; publication year of the document; objectives and a brief description of the document; the target population addressed by the study (including university administrators, teachers, professors, and doctoral students); definitions of text verbosity; characteristics of text verbosity; types of text verbosity; factors influencing text verbosity; consequences of text verbosity for both authors and readers; tools and strategies for reducing text verbosity.

This structured approach facilitated a comprehensive and systematic review of the literature, enabling us to identify and synthesise key findings related to text verbosity in academic writing.

Summarising and Reporting the Results

Following the data charting phase, the same reviewers synthesised information concerning each aspect of the text verbosity phenomenon identified during the charting stage.

The terminological ambiguity encountered during the source selection phase necessitated a detailed analysis of the identified definitions of text verbosity to extract their core characteristics. These characteristics were essential for establishing a consensus definition of text verbosity. The identified definitions of text verbosity were transcribed and organised in sequentially numbered Microsoft Word documents. The coding process, conducted by the first and second authors, followed the methodology proposed by Braun and Clarke (2006). Initially, the first author examined the text to generate a preliminary set of codes. These initial codes were then reviewed and refined in collaboration, leading to the development of potential themes. Subsequently, each researcher independently performed a thematic analysis using these codes, a step critical for ensuring a thorough and impartial evaluation of the data.

Discussions between the coders achieved over 94% consensus on the themes, codes, and references, indicating a high degree of inter-coder reliability. Any differences were addressed through detailed comparison and dialogue, which led to the modification of some codes and the reclassification of certain themes. A second round of coding was conducted based on these adjusted themes, further refining the analysis.

Similarly, the factors leading to and the implications arising from the excessive incorporation of superfluous words in scholarly texts, as identified by the researchers of the studies encompassed in this review, were systematically coded and conceptualised.

Data Visualisation

This analysis enabled the review authors to highlight the key characteristics of this phenomenon. Each characteristic was linked to the study mentioning it (Tables 4 and 5), ensuring the highest level of verifiability for the identified data. These characteristics were considered foundational for developing a unified definition of the term and for comparing the scope of the two analysed terms (wordiness and verbosity).

Researchers define the scope and content of the terms ‘wordiness’ and ‘verbosity’ differently. Goonaratna (2002a, 2002b), Aziz et al. (2016), Brohaugh (2007), and Boumeddane (2021) view these concepts as interchangeable. The analysis of these definitions reveals that ‘wordiness’ includes a spectrum of writing challenges, ranging from the total number of words used to the selection and complexity of the language, affecting reader engagement and comprehension. While ‘verbosity’ often carries negative implications, highlighting its excessive nature, some scholars attribute positive qualities to it, advocating for its use as a deliberate rhetorical strategy to enhance communication. Abdul-Raof (2006) notes its utility in influencing the reader, garnering sympathy and affection, ensuring affirmation, demonstrating respect, preventing ambiguity, and providing clarification. Ibrahim et al. (2014) suggest verbosity can serve for emphasis or to eliminate ambiguity. They also argue it helps in clarifying the communicator's messages. Furthermore, they view verbosity as beneficial elaboration, where the extensive use of words serves a purposeful function. Bianco (2024) contends that in verbosity, every word plays an essential role, ensuring no part of the message is deemed extraneous.

The initial four characteristics for ‘wordiness’ and ‘verbosity’ align in content, yet their fifth attributes diverge: wordiness has a negative impact on readability, whereas verbosity can serve as a positive rhetorical tool (See Table 6). ‘Verbosity’ in academic writing denotes the problematic overuse of words, impacting clarity and reader comprehension. ‘Verbosity’ and ‘wordiness’ both illuminate this issue, but ‘verbosity’ offers a broader view by addressing the effects of word choice and complexity on reader engagement. This distinction renders ‘verbosity’ as the more apt descriptor for the academic writing phenomenon, where excessive or complex language can obscure meaning or, conversely, enhance communication depending on its application. Thus, ‘verbosity’ is defined as the presence of superfluous words or complex expressions in writing, which can either merely bloat the text or strategically enhance it for clarity, precision, or reader engagement. This variance influences how readers interpret and interact with the text.

Approaches for Enhancing Clarity and Brevity to Avoid Wordiness

To streamline academic writing and mitigate wordiness, recommendations from various scholars can be categorised into strategic approaches for enhancing clarity and brevity:

(1) Preliminary and contextual edits: Mikelonis and Constantinides (2005) emphasise the importance of conducting an extensive contextual edit before focusing on the specifics. This initial step is crucial for identifying sentence-level errors and ensuring the coherence of paragraphs. Such an approach not only enhances the clarity of the text but also lays a solid foundation for further detailed analysis.

(2) Sentence-level refinement: This approach encompasses several key strategies aimed at enhancing sentence quality: Eliminating redundancy: According to Fruehwald (2010), Every (2017), and Stott and Avery (2001), it is essential to remove redundant phrases and expressions to ensure that each word contributes meaningfully to the text; Positive expression: Fruehwald (2010) advocates for the use of positive statements rather than negations to foster directness and clarity in writing; Simplification: Stott and Avery (2001) and Hamid (2013) recommend employing simpler, active voice constructions and eschewing unnecessary jargon, thereby improving readability and conciseness.

(3) Structural considerations involving Direct writing style: Eisenberg (1984) suggests adopting a straightforward writing style that avoids nominalizations and focuses on delivering informative abstracts and well-founded theoretical backgrounds, thereby enhancing the text's accessibility and impact; and Sentence structure: Boumeddane (2021) highlights the importance of simplifying sentence structures and favouring noun compounds to declutter the text and promote a more streamlined presentation of ideas.

(4) Review and feedback requiring: Thorough revisions: Stott and Avery (2001) underscore the value of engaging in comprehensive revisions and soliciting peer feedback to uncover and address areas in need of improvement; and Self-editing: Abdul-Raof (2006) emphasises the necessity of developing self-editing skills to critically assess and eliminate verbosity, ensuring that the writing is as clear and concise as possible.

(5) Writing practices aimed at Concise language implementation: The pursuit of concise language, as advocated by Fruehwald (2010) and Mikelonis and Constantinides (2005), involves avoiding vague qualifiers and ensuring that adjectives and manner words do not contribute to wordiness; and Fewer words usage: Dulek (1982) and Hicks and Douglas (2018) promote the principle of brevity, advising writers to use fewer words and omit nonessential information to enhance the text's effectiveness and readability.

This review was aimed to delve into the complexity of text verbosity in academic contexts, seeking to delineate its origins, manifestations, consequences, and possible reduction techniques. Our investigation was structured around key questions concerning verbosity's impact on the readability and comprehension of scholarly texts and the effectiveness of strategies designed to mitigate its presence. The findings illuminate a more intricate landscape of text verbosity than previously understood, unravelling the nuanced roles of 'verbosity' and 'wordiness' in scholarly communication. This differentiation is pivotal, as it reveals that the excessive use of words, depending on context and purpose, can either obscure or clarify intended messages.

By synthesising diverse viewpoints on verbosity, this study uncovers new insights. While existing literature frequently casts wordiness in a negative light, highlighted by Hamid (2013) and Dulek (1982), we also found arguments in favour of verbosity's strategic application for enhancing textual clarity and reader engagement, notably in Abdul-Raof (2006). This dualistic view invites a reassessment of verbosity's potential to contribute positively to academic discourse, challenging entrenched perceptions and suggesting a more balanced appreciation of its utility.

By integrating findings from individual studies with our broader thematic analysis, this review offers a comprehensive understanding of text verbosity, distinguishing itself from narrower investigations. While studies such as those by Eisenberg (1984) and Boumeddane (2021) provide deep dives into specific facets of verbosity, our synthesis elucidates the overarching challenges and opportunities presented by verbosity in academic writing, thereby contributing a holistic view to the discourse on scholarly communication effectiveness.

To varying degrees, nearly all studies examined in this review mentioned overwriting - a phenomenon characterised by the inclusion of unnecessary detail, description, or elaboration in a text, exceeding what is required for clarity or impact (Boumeddane, 2021). Such practices contribute to verbosity, extending the length of the text without enhancing its value, which may obscure key points and challenge reader engagement and comprehension. Overwriting emerges as a prevalent challenge across both creative and academic writing domains, where finding the optimal balance between comprehensive expression and brevity poses a significant difficulty for authors.

The umbrella term ‘overwriting’ requires analysis in terms of how its scope overlaps with the typology of text verbosity. This examination should consider the extent to which overwriting's characteristics - such as unnecessary detail, excessive descriptions, or redundant explanations - mirror the various types identified within text verbosity. By comparing these aspects, it's possible to elucidate the nuances of overwriting within the broader context of verbosity, identifying shared elements as well as distinguishing features that specifically contribute to the overburdening of textual content.

The aggregated data culminate in the conclusion that, although the phenomenon under study has been illuminated in the extant literature, a markedly limited number of works directly address the exploration of terminological representation (Cleaveland and Larkins, 2004; Ibrahim et al., 2016; Greavu, 2019; Boumeddane, 2021), the justification and examination of typologies (Brohaugh, 2007; Hamid, 2013; Demir, 2019), the analysis of causes leading to the saturation of texts with irrelevant words and constructions (Goonaratna, 2002a, 2002b; Abdul-Raof, 2006; Boumeddane, 2021) and the development of tools aimed at eradicating irrelevant practices in academic writing (Stott and Avery, 2001; Mikelonis and Constantinides, 2005; Fruehwald, 2010). Moreover, despite the active integration of neural networks into the fabric of oral and written academic communication, as discussed by scholars such as Malik et al. (2023), Ou et al. (2024) and Khalifa and Albadwy (2024), these technological advancements have yet to mitigate the detriment that text verbosity inflicts on the architecture of information presentation. This underscores the persistent need for further research aimed at understanding and addressing the root causes of text verbosity, thereby enhancing the efficacy and clarity of academic discourse.

Nonetheless, this review acknowledges certain limitations, most notably our dependence on accessible literature, which might not capture the full spectrum of contemporary scholarship on text verbosity. Moreover, the exclusive focus on academic writing restricts the generalizability of our conclusions to other writing forms, where perceptions of verbosity and wordiness might diverge significantly.

This review conducted a thorough examination of text verbosity, uncovering its complex nature and impact on academic writing. By analysing scholarly sources, it identified key characteristics, causes, and consequences of verbosity and wordiness, alongside mitigation strategies. The distinction between verbosity and wordiness was clarified, demonstrating how each affects text clarity, readability, and effectiveness. Contrary to the predominantly negative views on verbosity, evidence suggests it can be used strategically to improve clarity, reduce ambiguity, and engage readers. These insights have significant implications for writing instruction, suggesting the integration of conciseness and effective language use into academic writing curricula and workshops. Additionally, the strategies identified for reducing verbosity can guide the development of tools and aids to help authors enhance their writing's conciseness.