{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.011940298507462687, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.330188679245283, '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 new paradigm or a misrepresentation of current communication research and teaching?

Editor – It is valuable for Salmon and Young to challenge the status quo of researchers and teachers and prompt those working in clinical communication to re-examine their underlying theoretical frameworks and assumptions. However, we believe they have presented a highly biased discussion of current research and teaching which cherry-picks the evidence and produces a description that those working in the field simply do not recognise. Their analysis fails to take into account the realities of the evidence base and the actual practice of communication scholarship and education.