Since you said Tanach, I'm going to only include full Tanach translations here and ignore the various translations which only include the Torah.
These are all the complete Tanach translations I know about, and I have reason to believe this is a fairly comprehensive list.
- The Jerusalem Bible, by Professor Harold Fisch, Koren. 1950s-ish
- The living Torah/The Living Nach, By Aryeh Kaplan and others, Moznaim. 1960s-ish [link]
- Judaica Press Books of the Bible, by Rabbi A.J. Rosenberg, Judaica Press.
- Stone Chumash/Tanach, by Artscroll. 1990s
- Tanakh: The Holy Scriptures, JPS. 1985 [link]
- Tanakh: The Holy Scriptures, JPS. 1917 [link]
- Jewish Family Bible, by Michael Friedlander 1884
- Jewish School and Family Bible, Dr. A. Benisch, 1852 [link]
- The Leeser Bible, by Isaac Leeser, 1853 [link]
The first question is how you feel about reading a translation which includes lots of sentences like "God give thee of the dew of heaven, and the fatness of the earth, and plenty of corn and must" or whether you prefer the more modern "And may God give you of the dew of the heavens and of the fatness of the earth, and abundant grain and wine." All of the older translations (pre-1920) use archaic language. The Jerusalem bible by Fisch also uses this style, even though it was written in the middle of the 20th century. All the others use modern sounding words. Of these Artscroll and the living Torah are definitely the most modern sounding in their choice of words, while the others try to maintain a stronger sense of formality in their language.
The two JPS translations - JPS 1985 and JPS 1917 are certainly the most academic while still being based in Jewish thought. Artscroll is based solely on traditional Jewish thought. The living Torah/Nach is about as far from a translation as you can get and still call is a translation - it includes a lot of text which is implied by non-Torah sources (like the mishnah) in it's Torah translation. The Jerusalem Bible is a healthy mix of the two approached, but it uses archaic language.
While the main difference between JPS 1917 and 1985 is the language used, the 1985 translation also benefits from updated scholarship. In 1917 biblical scholarship and input from fields like archaeology and linguistics was in its infancy. By the 1980s the JPS team had the advantage of another 70 years of research to utilize. The older JPS translation as the gold standard for decades, but it is dated by today's standards. The new JPS is still the gold standard for those seeking an academic translation.
Although it's not complete, since you did say you're looking for academic translations I would be remiss if I didn't mention Everett Fox's translation and commentary. (Published by Schocken). He does something a little unique, which is to try to convey the rhythm and feeling of the Hebrew, and treats the text more like poetry than prose. I did not include it because it is not yet complete - he's done the Torah and the early prophets, and AFAIK is continuing to work on it, though you may have to be patient if you want to get the whole thing.
Giant TLDR: Get the new JPS, unless you like Fox's approach and are willing to wait.