{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.013793103448275862, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.482142857142857, '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}}
New Body of Cohesion Research at a Macrolevel

A prior special issue of this journal attempts to broaden the perspective on military cohesion. While such broadening is desirable, the lead issue author incorporates only a narrow portion of relevant literature, makes misleading assertions, does not distinguish the difference between conducting studies and carrying out social scientific research, and fails to appreciate the advances made in scalable microlevel cohesion research. This commentary notes the limited literature cited, summarizes the distinction between a study and science, and suggests issues and concepts to be addressed to make a stronger start in research on military cohesion at the meso- and macrolevels.