{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.014184397163120567, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.13768115942029, '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}}
Scientific Rationality and the Logic of Research Acceptance

Most recently, what I have been working on in connection with it is the larger picture of the role of the editor in professional communication. Since the basic context for this is not philosophical communication in particular but rather scientific communication in general—ultimately professional communication in general—I’ve been exchanging some ideas with one of the main editors for the American Physical Society, which is the major professional society for physicists, and it has been most helpful in expanding my understanding of the editorial role, which is clearly the single most important factor in the publication system at this point. I don’t get into that in what follows below, but the basic frame for the discussion is adjusted to make that a part of what is considered.