“Pleased to learn”—Our dean informs us that, based on anonymous student surveys, our students are not actually pleased to learn.
“Hopefully”—Hope died here years ago.
“Unacceptable”—Our publication record speaks for itself. Any old claptrap will be accepted. Our purchase of MIT Publications, Inc. was worth every penny.
“Speculate”—Instead say that “the data are insufficient to confirm our theory with any certainty”, then blame the field researchers.
“No longer fit for purpose”—Don’t use many words when one will do: “emeritus”.
“Invest”—Alumni donations make up a large portion of our budget. Don’t use “invest” lest our alums realize they’re getting no return.
“I understand your concerns”—While there is nothing wrong with this phrase in principle, recent publications have been delayed due to our tendency to follow this phrase with “but” and a list of reasons why the reviewer is intellectually incapable of understanding the genius of our insights.
“Esquire”—Some people objected to our guidance to refer to all non-titled males as “esquire” without providing a term for those non-male people that other departments seem to have these days. Please remember to cast your vote for choice of female-equivalent term: “esquiress”, “esquirecita”, or “esquilax”.
“Equal”—He Who Shall Not Be Questioned doesn’t want researchers to entertain any notions about this equality nonsense. No one wants a repeat of last year’s incident, least of all the Facilities and Custodial departments.
Single space after a period, one-eighth inch margins, single spacing, and double-sided printing—Contrary to popular belief, these are not measures to conserve paper. We simply want to discourage the common practice wherein readers use any remaining whitespace on the page to correct all of the supposed “errors”. (As we kindly explained to the reviewer in small words that we thought he’d understand, he is simply not smart enough to see why we’re right.)
Don’t check your work—That’s the reviewer’s job.
Use imperial measurements—We’re building an empire here.