As Loren Rosson notes on The Busybody, several blogs have been reflecting on the good, the bad and the ugly in academic writing, and it has been a refreshing and interesting thread. Loren has an excellent contribution called The Seven Deadly Sins in Writing, based on a book by Constance Hale called Sin and Syntax. Some of these really ring true to what I like and dislike in academic writing and number 4, "Pretence", "Resorting to pompous, ponderous, or just imponderable nouns" is right on the mark. I would add that there is a tendency in academic prose to prefer a Latin phrase where a perfectly good English one will do, e.g. why say theologia crucis rather than theology of the cross? Or status quaestionis rather than overview of current research (or similar)? The only qualification that needs adding here is that sometimes pericope doesn't mean quite the same thing as "passage".
Of the seven sins, I think the only one I'd question is 7, Euphemism, "Describing offensive behavior with inoffensive terms, or sensitive issues with politically-correct language". I think that sometimes, restraint and even understatement is appropriate in academic discourse, especially when dealing with sensitive subjects. When one treads carefully, one sometimes has a better chance of engaging critically with opposing viewpoints. Where a topic is sensitive, a highly emotional response can detract from intelligent discussion, and so do no good in exposing the problems being studied. I would therefore add an eighth deadly sin in academic writing, or perhaps substitute this one for 7:
8. Polemic: the use of unnecessarily hostile language including overstatement, ridicule, insult and hyperbole. As a general rule, if you are writing in harsh criticism of another scholar, imagine yourself saying it out loud at a conference with the person present in the room, and ask yourself if you are comfortable with your tone.