Does convoluted use of language negatively impact a work reviewed by a committee? [duplicate]

Question

This question is a reformulation of a previous one that I deleted. I'll try to be more specific.

I'm a student in the field of International Relations, a sub branch of the Political Sciences. Reading works in the Social Sciences, I'm becoming progressively aware that convoluted language and pedantry are a significant problem in academic writing.

Sometimes the text is as hard as philosophy, whilst expressing common, everyday knowledge of the field.

Other times, language is okay, but the author is pedant.

Now, I wanted to know:

How often - if at all - professional academic reviewers face this issue?

If they do, will a thesis or paper ever face problems due to language usage?

---

Post Script:

Writers have personal tendencies. One may write in excess detail, repeat themselves, lose focus, etc.

That's not what I'm talking about.

I'm talking about affected, convoluted, artificial, forced and conceited use of language, as well as pedantry in its most evident forms.

As it turns out, I think I didn't make a good use of the "mannered" word. I edited the question to say "convoluted" instead.

I'm not a native speaker, so I think I failed to capture my intent here, anyways, a question was linked to this one that ultimately answers to much of my doubts.

Answer 1

How often - if at all - professional academic reviewers face this issue?

All the time.

(as a side note - there are very few "professional" academic reviewers because in general academic reviewers are not paid).

If they do, will a thesis or paper ever face problems due to language usage?

Very, very, rarely. For a start, what you see as pedantry, many will see as precision, and precision is the lifeblood of academia. Indeed, this need for preciseness often leads to what you might think of as "mannered" language in an author of average skill. And academics are selected for their skills in their chosen field, not their abilities as writers.

But there is nots of unnecessarily dense and uninterpretable language in academia that isn't tied to the need for precision. Generally a reviewer is asked to review the intellectual content of a work, not the way it is expressed. In general it is only acceptable to reject a scholarly work as a reviewer if the language is so poor that it literally cannot be understood. A reviewer might point out that there are many mistakes of spelling and grammar in a piece, and request that they be corrected before publication, but thats not quite what you are talking about here.