Lately, I have been very critical of some self-published OHS books. I am not against this form of publishing, but the books need to be high-quality and professional; otherwise, they are, at best, short-term marketing and, at worst, vanity publishing.
OHS relies on evidence, and the highest standard of evidence is peer-reviewed academic or independent research. In this context, the information has been validated. Self-publishing is often written from experience with very little external reference (unless it is based on a PhD). Any book, even a self-published one, needs credibility.
Anecdote has its place, but it must be backed up with evidence of another type or form of verification. If case studies are used, they must be based on reality and not be fiction, even when anonymous.
OHS is not only an academic discipline, but can be shaped just as much by experience, judgment and real‑world problem‑solving as by journals and citations. Prominent OHS-related professionals and practitioners often have more clout, as their reputations often rely on authoritative work.
In most cases, a self-published book should not be relied on for guidance on how to comply with OHS legal obligations, but it can be useful for translating complex issues into accessible language, challenging complacency, and prompting better conversations about risk, culture, and control.
I will give this type of book more attention and more respect when (if?) the book includes a bibliography so that I can verify references and interpretations. Greater respect will come from including an index or concordance. Such a thing is easily produced nowadays with AI tools, and an index is a useful tool for examining themes (or omissions) in the text.
So, IMO, a good self-published OHS book is one that
- is written by a prominent or authoritative writer familiar with or knowledgeable in OHS,
- has been produced with a professional (human) editor, or has been peer-reviewed,
- includes a bibliography and index,
- takes, preferably, a multidisciplinary approach to OHS,
- adds evidence rather than anecdote to the OHS state of knowledge, and
- is more than a marketing tool.