This book potentially has three good things going for it. Firstly, it is unusual – I do not know of many other reference tools that cover exactly the same ground, though there are one or two. Secondly, it appears to be accurate – I cannot pretend to have checked every entry, but I have not noticed any factual errors in those looked at. Thirdly, it has been compiled by someone who should have a reasonable claim to being aware of the needs of reference library users.
Scientific principles are more commonly known as the “laws” of science. I fully agree with the compiler in preferring the word principles. The term “laws” seems to me to imply a legislator, and there are plenty of scientists whose work depends on universal principles but who would deny the existence of any such lawgiver. A clear understanding of basic principles is essential for scientific work. Every scientific textbook or reference source is likely to contain definitions of the relevant principles. I do not know of many other reference books entirely devoted to them however. I always used to use the Dictionary of Named Effects and Laws, but this has not been updated since the fourth edition, which is now over 30 years old (Ballentyne and Lovett, 1980). The most recent that I know of is the two‐volume Encyclopedia of Scientific Principles, Laws and Theories (Krebs, 2008) (RR 2009/131). I have not used this encyclopedia in reference practice of course, but it looks useful to me. The Dictionary of Scientific Principles has joined a fairly small pool of specialised reference resources.
This book is arranged in two sections. The first and largest consists of definitions: a list of approximately 2,000 scientific principles with a brief paragraph or so of definition to each. Most, but not all of them, have a bibliographic reference (footnoted for some reason, not placed directly below the entry). These references are a rather odd selection – they are not usually references either to the original elucidation of the principle or to the most recent explanation of it. I assume that they are merely references that the author found handy when compiling the book: the reference for Boyle's principle (which relates to gas pressures) for example, is to a 1977 Dictionary of Earth Sciences. As mentioned, those entries I have examined appear to my limited knowledge to be accurate – my knowledge of mathematics is so poor for example, that I cannot be sure that the complex series of letters and Greek squiggles used to explain the Boyarsky Principle (“If cohomology is parameterized rationally by character then the Frobenius operation will vary continuously with the character”) are entirely accurate. This is not, of course, a dictionary of science, so if you want to find out what the Frobenius operation is, or even what Boyarsky meant by cohomology, you will have to look elsewhere.
The second, slightly smaller, part of the book consists of Applications – an alphabetical sequence of scientific topics, each having a list of those scientific principles which might be relevant to it. Thus, for example, if you were studying the commutation relation you could look here and discover that you might need to apply the uncertainty principle, the D'Alembert Lagrange principle, etc. Again, of course, if you wanted to know what the commutation relation actually is you would have to look elsewhere for a definition. This is strictly a dictionary of principles, not a dictionary of science.
Compiling this book was clearly a labour of love for the author. He says in his brief preface that he set out to compile the New Millennium Dictionary of Scientific Principles but somehow went on collecting for another six years or so before he felt ready to publish. Having spent all that extra time collecting, it seems to me to be a pity that he did not spend some of it thinking about his choice of headings before going into print. This would, in fact, be my chief criticism of the book: the poor and inconsistent choice of headings makes it difficult to use as a printed quick reference tool. Given that the entire book is about principles it seems silly to have a large number of entries under P for principle of … . Thus, for example, there is an entry for principle of briquetting (an engineering principle governing the way in which formed structures can be made from granulated powder, since you ask) but there is no entry or reference under B for briquetting. Sometimes there are duplicated entries – there is an entry for the least squares principle, and a rather longer but overlapping entry on the principle of least squares. Following strict alphabetical order, the principle of the activated double bond is under principle of T … not under principle of A … and there is no entry or reference under activated to lead you to it. Where there are several inter‐related principles they are sometimes collated under principles, filed after principle. Thus, for example there is an entry under principles of energetics and a separate one for each of them spelled out by number – an entry under F for fourth principle of energetics, etc., but no entry or even a cross‐reference under energetics or principle of energetics.
What surprises me about this is that the compiler is a reference librarian: reference co‐ordinator at West Chester University and previously director of the Dr Michael Margolies Coatesville Area Public Library. He must, like me, have spent interminable sessions fumbling through unfamiliar reference books gradually discovering that the entries in them are in two alphabetic sequences, or that, as here, there is nothing under Lex Talionis but there is an entry for Principle of Lex Talionis, cross‐referenced to principle of reciprocity. I have no doubt that he had over‐stressed post‐docs from West Chester University drumming their fingers on his desk and tapping their feet while he fumbled too. He must, like me, have cursed reference books that are not arranged in crystal‐clear order, do not explain all the terms that they use, and do not have an index. He says that he had the whole thing on a spread‐sheet. Compiling a basic index from that would have been a very easy task. I am used to scientists not thinking about the choice of sought terms, but not librarians.
There are some inconsistencies or omissions. Thus for example, there is an entry under literature in the second part of the book (which seems to me to be stretching the term “scientific” in the title somewhat) which suggests the application of the Bruegelian principle, and of the Foucaldian principle of exclusion. The first sequence, however, contains no entries for either Bruegel or Foucault and their principles so I have no way of enlightening readers of this journal on their relevance to literary work. I am rather dubious at the idea of including a few odd items relating to literature, history or art into this book. These subjects may have their own “laws” but once you stray into the field of fiction the possibilities are endless: see Pratchett et al. (2000) for examples of more principles that could be included. Restricting the scope to a narrower definition of science, removing some of the duplication and abbreviating the word principle to pr. would have freed up enough space for an index.
Apart from the fault of not thinking clearly about choice of headings, the author has largely achieved what he set out to do. The book does what it says on the cover. The next question then is, was it worth doing, or rather, is it worth spending £130 on it? I am slightly dubious but have grudgingly come down on the positive side. Every scientific textbook and reference source is likely to contain some discussion of the scientific principles involved, so most libraries will already possess information on those principles that are of particular relevance to their users, but it can be handy to have them all together in one accessible source as well. Scientific and technical libraries that already possess adequate stocks of relevant dictionaries and encyclopedias, and do not already have a copy of Krebs will find this to be a useful supplementary reference tool. Libraries that once used to find a regular demand for Ballantyne but have found that it has got outdated should certainly consider this as a replacement. Definitions of scientific laws are occasionally asked for by members of the general public, so public reference libraries that can afford it may wish to bear it in mind as well.
