{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.028901734104046242, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.416666666666667, '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}}
A critique of some recent suggestions to correct the Kirkwood-Buff integrals.

This article is a thorough critique of some recent publications by Matteoli, Lepori, Ruckenstein and others who suggested a correction to the Kirkwood-Buff integrals to obtain "better" information on the molecular interactions. It is shown that the suggested "corrected" Kirkwood-Buff integrals are, in fact, less informative than the original integrals. A detailed and critical examination of the arguments that led to the suggested correction reveals some serious flaws. Therefore, it is argued that the corrected Kirkwood-Buff integrals should be "recorrected" to restore their original definition and meaning.