{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.02954048140043764, 'fraction_numerical': 0.00437636761487965, 'mean_word_length': 5.630434782608695, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
[Language is not neutral. Commentary about APA style].

Some basic characteristics, not always explicit, of the editorial style proposed by the American Psychological Association (APA), and from the objections posed by some authors who maintain critical positions towards the use of this style, are reviewed, starting with the work of Madigan, Johnson, and Linton (1995) and the subsequent controversy. Starting with this review, problems related to underlying assumptions of the style, with ethical aspects of research, and with the epistemological positions defended by the different traditions of research are discussed. In the conclusions, a simpler differentiation between the scientific-technical and communicative-practical systems of enquiry is proposed, and an explicit commitment, in the text of the report, to the ethical responsibilities derived from the authorship and the development of the research.