This question was raised in a recent ACS Chemical Health & Safety board meeting, in the context of seeking good-quality “scholarly” articles for this Journal. On what basis should an article be judged as scholarly? Not surprisingly, given the eclectic academic and work background of those attending the meeting, a variety of views were expressed. There was no clear answer or consensus. If there was a majority view it seemed to be in favor of expecting scholarly articles to be “scientific”. But what do these terms mean? Scholarly is a “serious detailed study of a subject” according to the online Cambridge English Dictionary.(1) Surely, we want articles that are serious and detailed. But is this enough? Should they be “scientific” too? The same online dictionary defines “scientific” as follows: “Knowledge from the careful study of the structure and behaviour of the physical world especially by watching, measuring, and doing experiments and the development of theories to describe the results of these activities.(2) Comparing these two definitions suggests that something could be scholarly but not scientific because this definition of scientific focuses on the physical world. In the field of chemical health and safety, perhaps we to also need to consider that something could be scientific but not scholarly because of the inherent limitation of quantitative data. For example, I am reminded of visiting a lead acid battery breaking company and measuring airborne lead dust. This was done by a combination of background dust sampling pumps and personal pumps fitted as close to the breathing zone of the workers as feasible. However, even where the data, such as exposure time, background readings for airborne lead, and the personal samplers, all produced similar results, there were still markedly different levels of lead in blood measured. Why was this? Biological differences could explain some of the variation, but careful observation suggested that individuals’ actions and style of working could make significant differences to their actual lead dust exposure. So yes, we had good data, derived from scientific understanding of the behavior of the lead dust in air using carefully calibrated instruments. All this was necessary to understand more about the problem, but the quantitative data was not sufficient if our goal was to explain the differences in the amount of lead absorbed by individuals and reduce them. We also needed an understanding of the way people react to risk, individually and in groups. How individuals coped (or did not cope) with wearing a protective mask for long periods. Discussion with the workers combined revealed that some did not know how to do an effective leak test with their mask. Others took their gloves and masks off as soon as they left the work site but unconsciously touched their face, likely ingesting some of the lead contaminated dust on their masks and gloves. However, they were unaware they were doing this and of the potential for ingestion as a contribution to their overall exposure Scientific data, medical knowledge, ergonomics, and what increasingly is referred to as human and organizational factors encompassing some aspects of psychology were needed to persuade people to do things differently. All these disciplines were needed for the scholarly study of this problem. I think this is true of most problems where humans are involved such as health and safety. Articles for the ACS Chemical Health & Safety Journal do need to be scholarly, and inevitably will need to draw on all types of scientific inquiry, including quantitative and qualitative lines of investigation founded in pure science as well as the social sciences as required. Views expressed in this editorial are those of the author and not necessarily the views of the ACS. This article references 2 other publications. This article has not yet been cited by other publications. This article references 2 other publications.

中文翻译：

---

当数字不够用时

这个问题是在最近的ACS化学健康与安全委员会会议上提出的，其背景是为本《日刊》寻求高质量的“学者”文章。文章应以什么依据为学术依据？毫不奇怪，考虑到与会人员折衷的学术和工作背景，他们表达了各种观点。没有明确的答案或共识。如果有多数意见，似乎似乎希望将学术文章“科学化”。但是这些术语是什么意思？根据在线剑桥英语词典，Scholarly是“对主题的认真研究”。（1）当然，我们需要严肃而详细的文章。但这够吗？他们也应该“科学”吗？同一本在线词典对“科学”的定义如下：“通过仔细研究物理世界的结构和行为而获得的知识，尤其是通过观察，测量和进行实验以及通过理论发展来描述这些活动的结果。（2 ）比较这两个定义，表明某些东西可能是学术性的，但不是科学的，因为这种科学性的定义着重于物理世界。在化学健康与安全领域，也许由于定量数据的固有局限性，我们还需要考虑某些事情可能是科学的，而不是学术性的。例如，我想起了去铅酸电池破碎公司并测量空气中铅尘的方法。这是通过将背景灰尘采样泵和个人泵安装在尽可能靠近工人的呼吸区域的方式来完成的。但是，即使在诸如暴露时间，空气中铅的背景读数以及个人采样器等数据均产生相似结果的情况下，所测量的血液中铅的水平仍然明显不同。怎么会这样 生物差异可以解释其中的一些差异，但是仔细观察表明，个人的行为和工作方式可能会与其实际的铅尘暴露量产生重大差异。因此，是的，我们有良好的数据，这是通过使用精心校准的仪器对空气中铅尘行为的科学了解得出的。所有这些对于深入了解该问题都是必要的，但是如果我们的目标是解释个人吸收的铅量的差异并减少铅的含量，那么定量数据是不够的。我们还需要了解人们对风险的反应方式，无论是个人还是团体。个人如何长时间应对（或不应对）戴防护口罩。与工人的讨论表明，有些人不知道如何使用口罩进行有效的泄漏测试。其他人离开工作地点后立即脱下手套和口罩，但不知不觉地触摸了他们的脸，可能会吞下口罩和手套上的一些铅污染粉尘。但是，他们不知道自己正在这样做，也不知道潜在的摄入可能对其总体暴露有影响。要说服科学数据，医学知识，人体工程学以及越来越多的涉及心理学某些方面的人为因素和组织因素，就必须说服人们做事不同。所有这些学科对于 他们没有意识到自己正在这样做，并且没有意识到潜在的摄入可能会对他们的整体接触造成影响科学数据，医学知识，人体工程学以及越来越多的被称为人和组织因素的心理学方面的内容都需要说服，以便说服人们做不同的事情。所有这些学科对于 他们没有意识到自己正在这样做，并且没有意识到潜在的摄入可能会对他们的整体接触造成影响科学数据，医学知识，人体工程学以及越来越多的被称为人和组织因素的心理学方面的内容都需要说服，以便说服人们做不同的事情。所有这些学科对于对这个问题进行学术研究。我认为对于涉及人类的大多数问题，例如健康和安全，都是如此。文章的ACS化学品健康与安全杂志确实需要学术，难免会需要按要求对所有类型的科学调查，包括调查建立在纯科学和社会科学的定量和定性的线条画。本社论中表达的观点只是作者的观点，不一定是ACS的观点。本文引用了其他2个出版物。本文尚未被其他出版物引用。本文引用了其他2个出版物。