I meant n articles per issue more than allowing articles to be length>m. My bad for the in-clarity :) I agree, in theory, with your point. I think the unfortun

I meant n articles per issue more than allowing articles to be length>m. My bad for the in-clarity :) I agree, in theory, with your point. I think the unfortunate thing that is lost in most efforts at concision are lack of detail rather than fluff. Fluff is bad, but I think detail is important...especially detail on how things are situated in prior literature. As a reviewer, I have often found there to be a lot of articles using 'strategic concision' to gloss over not doing things properly, or flat our not knowing what you are doing. Saying 'we used method x' means I have to trust you did it properly...or infer from other things how well you did it. Supplementary material could be a potential route here, but I just sent an article back for the second time. The first time they did the 'we did x' and I asked for more detail. The second time they said 'we did x by doing y and z'...but y and z were very very wrong. There are places where being able to explain concepts concisely are important or a viable tactic. Journal manuscripts are (in theory) a permanent archive of new knowledge for human society and have never struck me as the place were concision is a relevant parameter.