Abstract
It is generally accepted that a treatise designated as an encyclopedia is, or at least should be, an authoritative and a comprehensive source for a defined body of knowledge. Yet, some publications use the word encyclopedia as an adjective rather than a noun to give undue credibility to their publication. The Encyclopedia of Toxicology (EOT) is authoritative and comprehensive and does not need any embellishments to give it credibility. Furthermore, the designation of a work as encyclopedic suggests greatness that commands respect and reverence, and EOT wears its honor well.
It has been almost 17 years since the EOT was originally published. The intent of the EOT was to provide toxicological information to diverse audiences in addition to practicing toxicologists and students of toxicology. In the three editions, EOT has expanded and maintained its multiaudience appeal as toxicology has grown. There has been almost a 50% increase in the number of entries in the EOT, with a concomitant seven-fold increase in the number of authors.
The Third Edition of the EOT, which was published in April 2014, consists of 5,220 pages that are distributed among four volumes. Approximately 1,400 authors made contributions to over 1,100 entries, covering a wide selection of topics related to toxicology. The Editorial Board consists of an Editor-in-Chief and nine Associate Editors. There is a promise, albeit veiled, for updates for the online version of EOT. It was not clear if purchasers of the print version would have access to any online updates if they occurred.
In addition to the alphabetic organization of the topical material, there are supplemental materials available to assist the user which are part of the treatise. The most useful aids are the following: How to Use the Encyclopedia, Article Titles, Subject Index, Notes on the Subject Index, Glossary and Notes on the Glossary. The How to Use the Encyclopedia is the obvious first place to start and the instructions on a single page are clear and accurate. There are three subset collections at the end of the Article Titles section, which are labeled as APPENDICIES. These collections are named as: Appendix—Public Domain Online Chemical Compendia—A Brief Selection, Annex 1—Abbreviations and Acronyms Used in Toxicology Literature, and Annex 2—Abbreviations and Acronyms of International Bodies and Legislation.
I realized that it is impossible to read the entire Third Edition, all 1,100 articles contained over 5,200 pages before the release of the Fourth Edition. Realistically, I must practice toxicology and not just read about it. Consequently, I had to develop a plan worthy of the stature and importance of the EOT that would adequately and honestly assess the breadth, depth, and quality of the EOT as a whole as well as serve as an appropriate sample of the individual articles. Carrying out the plan took time but not as much time as it would have taken to read the entire EOT!
The subjects I selected to assess the EOT came from 2 sources: (1) subjects and topical items gleaned from standard toxicology texts and (2) subjects and topical items to which I was exposed in my daily practice as a toxicologist—a true, real-time, in vivo test by a practicing toxicologist. This approach covered both the theoretical and foundational (academic) aspects of toxicology as well as its application (practical implementation). Using this approach, I was able to reduce my analyses to a manageable level of approximately 10% (92 articles or subjects covering 512 pages) of the complete tome. Right or wrong, this approach gave me the confidence that I did not willfully compromise the review. The results were astonishing!
Of the 92 test queries I made, only 2 were not immediately available in my initial search. I found what I was seeking for 1 of the 2 queries, for which I did not obtain an immediate answer, by asking the question in various ways that were different from my original question. In short, the answer was there, and I just had to formulate a different question. The second query for which I did not get an immediate answer within the EOT required a bit more work. I went to the Appendix – Public Domain Online Chemical Compendia – A Brief Selection at the end of Article Titles section and I was able to find the information I needed outside the EOT but directed to it by EOT. My inescapable conclusion is that the EOT is exemplar of the standards that have been established for an encyclopedia.
I found that the depth to which each topic was treated varied which is neither good nor bad. Just as the depth of the treatment varies, the need for information on a specific topic varies, and queries, just like humans, are individual and have inherent variation associated with them. When the depth of explanation was not sufficient for my needs, I consulted additional sources. I was not expecting, and neither should you expect, that the EOT should be “the theory of everything” for toxicology.
Each of the entries I reviewed was well done. The styles varied but that is to be expected, especially when two or more entries had to be read for the same query. The structure for the individual articles varied to some extent, but I sensed that occurred because the topical matter required unique structural organization of specific information. I found that the general approach to the articles was consistent and made sense. The major weakness of some of the articles, but certainly not all, was the limited, and at times even a complete absence of, references. References are important and necessary so that either inadvertently or intentionally expressed opinions of the authors do not become perceived or accepted as fact. In the digital world, far too many inaccuracies are accepted as truths and undisputed facts just because they are the result of some search engine activity.
There were many good Internet reference URLs to specific documents on the Internet, but there were also many generic Web sites to HOME pages, which were next to useless and could readily be obtained using commercial search engines if the user didn’t already know them by memory. For updates and future additions, reference material within each of the articles can and should be improved, if for no other reason than to be an honest attempt to achieve and maintain accuracy. It would have been more reassuring if each article had at least 1 review article as part of the reference material. In addition to assuring accuracy, a review article would serve as guidance for information sources outside of EOT.
The addition of more references and inclusion of review articles will add to the already stellar treatise. However, the elimination of a paragraph in the preface would remove a distraction to the work. The pejorative tone in the paragraph labeling those scientists who challenge global warming and climate change as “Naysayers who deny its existence or reject the human factor despite the science …” is distracting and inappropriate for an encyclopedic work. An encyclopedia, by its very essence, must be unbiased and not ideologically motivated. It is appropriate for EOT to address social issues. It is not appropriate for EOT to choose sides in social issues or declare what is or should be a scientific discourse. Let the facts rule without any partisan embellishments. Picking a side of the climate change argument is tantamount to reducing what needs to be a serious scientific query to political “talking points.”
The Editor-in-Chief and his Editorial Board have assembled one of the most significant resources for not only practicing toxicologists but also all those scientists who are or should be attentive to adverse effects in humans and animals, the levels at which the adverse effects occur and, more importantly, the levels at which those adverse effects are not seen. The availability of the EOT as a resource will most likely be through a library that has access through a license for Elsevier publications. The cost for a personal copy of the EOT will be prohibitive for most individuals.