Last month, Mary Beth Mulcahy let the list know of the opportunity to be a reviewer for the ACS Chemical Health & Safety journal and suggested people who are interested in this chance for professional development take advantage of the ACS Reviewer Lab (https://www.acsreviewerlab.org/). I completed this on line course last week and have a philosophical question for the DCHAS membership based on the guidelines suggested there.

The Reviewer Lab suggests that one of the reviewer's jobs is to assess whether the article contains "good science". I wonder if CHAS members approach this question in the same way as is outlined in the course, which relies on the traditional description of the scientific method. The Reviewers Lab suggests that the reader consider the author's Experimental Approach, Design and Execution along with Data Analysis methods as the primary criteria for assessing the value of an article about chemical health and safety issues.

Since health and safety issues often involve unpredicted or unexplained outcomes of chemical processes and/or the complex cultural system associated with process safety decision-making, I often find myself interested in questions that go beyond the criteria mentioned above. My usual interest in reading a peer reviewed article is in understanding the nature of the work that is being conducted and assessing how it might impact my strategies in supporting safer lab practice in specific contexts. These questions often do not align with the technically-oriented questions suggested above. I wonder if other CHAS members take a similar approach in reviewing the health and safety oriented scientific literature?

Thanks for any thoughts on this question.

- Ralph


Ralph Stuart, CIH, CCHO
Environmental Safety Manager
Keene State College
603 358-2859

ralph.stuart**At_Symbol_Here**keene.edu

---
For more information about the DCHAS-L e-mail list, contact the Divisional membership chair at membership**At_Symbol_Here**dchas.org
Follow us on Twitter **At_Symbol_Here**acsdchas