Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 3 minor 79 references

Challenges for the periodic systems of elements: chemical, historical and mathematical perspectives

T0 review · 3 major / 3 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read The paper argues that the periodic system is an ordered hypergraph—an interweaving of order and similarity—so no single final periodic table exists.

desk verdict A well-written conceptual perspective that makes the 'ordered hypergraph' case accessible, but the 'no final table' conclusion rests on a definitional move and forthcoming data, not on evidence in this paper. read the letter →

arxiv 1909.13621 v1 pith:QWPRXSTO submitted 2019-08-20 physics.hist-ph

Restrepo Guillermo This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.hist-ph
keywords periodicsystemtableorderedhypergraphchemicalspacesimilarityelementsuperheavyelementsphilosophyofchemistry
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper's central claim is that the periodic system of the chemical elements is neither a classification nor a simple ordering but the interweaving of both: order relationships, originally by atomic weight and later by atomic number, combined with similarity relationships drawn from the compounds elements form. This structure, the paper argues, is formally an ordered hypergraph, and it supplies a much-needed definition of what a periodic system actually is. If the claim holds, the periodic table on the classroom wall is only one of many valid representations: different choices of ordering and similarity criteria yield different periodic systems, so there is no final periodic table. The paper uses this perspective to reinterpret the 1860s origins of the system, to question the assumption that similarities run vertically down columns, and to call for rebuilding the system from the full historical record of chemical compounds.

What carries the argument

The central object is the ordered hypergraph: a set of objects equipped with a classification into similarity classes (the hyperedges) together with an order relation, for example atomic number. This object carries the argument by giving a formal, relational definition of what a periodic system is, showing that order and similarity have equal status and that changing either criterion yields a different periodic system while the underlying structure remains unchanged.

What would settle it

A concrete test would be to build the ordered hypergraph from a large modern sample of the chemical space using the same compound-composition similarity criterion; if the resulting similarity classes do not recover the traditional families (alkali metals, halogens, noble gases) in the atomic-number order, the paper's characterization of the periodic system would be falsified.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The periodic system of chemical elements is the interweaving of two relations among elements: an order relation, historically given by atomic weight and now by atomic number, and a similarity relation, originally inferred from the proportions and types of compounds elements form. The author and collaborators have shown that such a structure is an ordered hypergraph: a set of objects with a classification into similarity classes (hyperedges) together with an order relation. Under this definition, a periodic system is any result of ordering and classifying elements by some stated properties; the conventional periodic table is one representation of one such system, not the system itself. Consequently, the paper maintains, there is no final periodic table: there is instead a super-structure containing all possible periodic systems, and any particular table is a projection or shadow of that structure.

Load-bearing premise

The argument rests on the premise that chemical similarity and ordering relations can be fully captured by an ordered hypergraph built from compound-composition data, and that the 1860s data set of about 12,000 substances reproduces the historical system.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the ordered-hypergraph definition is right, the phrase 'the periodic table' misnames the object: tables are projections of a structure, and any property-based ordering-and-classification scheme generates a legitimate periodic system.
  • There is no final periodic table; instead there is a super-structure of all possible periodic systems, with subsethood and other relations among them worth exploring.
  • Vertical similarity is not a law of the system: similarities can be diagonal, horizontal, or cross-column, and some elements in the same column are chemically dissimilar.
  • The ordering criterion is revisable: if relativistic calculations show that atomic-number order destroys similarity groupings for superheavy elements, one may choose another order while keeping the underlying structure.
  • The system can be used predictively: ordered-hypergraph and machine-learning methods can estimate properties of elements or classes, extending the original interpolation approach into a general tool.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The ordered-hypergraph definition could serve as a template outside chemistry: any collection of objects with a chosen order relation and a chosen classification admits a 'periodic system,' which may give the framework a life in materials science, biology, or data science that the paper only gestures at.
  • If the full modern chemical space yields a different system than the 1860s one, the paper's own framing implies the community would face a real choice between a historical icon and a data-driven classification; the paper does not decide which should win.
  • The paper's critique of ground-state electronic configurations as similarity criteria suggests a concrete research program: compare configuration-based groupings with groupings derived from compound-formation data to see where they diverge, especially among heavy and superheavy elements.
  • One could formalize the 'sculpture and shadows' metaphor by defining quantitative measures of how much structure a given periodic table preserves from its ordered hypergraph, turning debates about alternative layouts into an optimization problem.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 3 minor

Summary. This paper offers a historical, philosophical, and mathematical analysis of the periodic system of the elements. It distinguishes the 'basic substance' and 'atomistic' concepts of chemical element, argues that Meyer's and Mendeleev's systems were built on both ordering and similarity relations derived from compounds, and claims that the resulting structure is best formalized as an ordered hypergraph. From this, the paper concludes that there is no unique final periodic table; rather, many periodic systems exist, related through a 'super structure' containing all possible systems. It further criticizes the overemphasis on vertical similarities and the periodic law, discusses superheavy-element order reversals, and advocates reconstructing periodic systems from the growing database of chemical compounds, citing a pilot study and a forthcoming large-scale reconstruction.

Significance. The paper's main contribution is conceptual and integrative: it brings together historical scholarship on Meyer and Mendeleev, philosophical discussions of chemical elementhood, and a contemporary mathematical proposal (ordered hypergraphs) that could explain the coexistence of many valid periodic tables. If the ordered-hypergraph representation is accepted, it provides a principled way to understand why periodic tables have proliferated and why no single chart is canonical. The paper also makes a testable empirical suggestion: that periodic systems can be reconstructed from chemical-space data, with the outcome (stability or change) being a genuine empirical question. Its historical sections are well sourced and its conceptual distinctions, such as that between system, table, and law, are useful. The main weaknesses are that the formal definition is deferred to prior work, the decisive empirical evidence is forthcoming rather than presented, and the 'no final table' conclusion is more analytic than the text sometimes implies.

major comments (3)
  1. [§5, reference [72]] The load-bearing empirical claim that the ordered hypergraph derived from the 1860s chemical space 'matches, to a large extent, Meyer's and Mendeleev's systems' is supported only by a forthcoming publication. Because this claim connects the formal definition of a periodic system as an ordered hypergraph to the actual historical systems, the manuscript should either report the similarity measure, the threshold used to construct hyperedges, and the criterion for 'matches to a large extent,' or explicitly label the claim as preliminary. As written, a reader cannot assess whether the formalism is genuinely reconstructive rather than a restatement of the historical tables in new vocabulary.
  2. [§2.1 and §3.1.2] The conclusion 'there is no final periodic table, what is final is the super structure' follows directly from the definition of a periodic system as 'the result of ordering and classifying chemical elements by some of their properties.' The argument is therefore analytic rather than empirical. The manuscript should clarify what empirical content remains—for example, whether the full chemical space privileges some systems as more adequate or stable—and should not imply that the empirical studies described in §5 can settle the uniqueness question, since under the paper's own definition any ordering-plus-similarity choice counts as a legitimate system.
  3. [§3, opening paragraph] The ordered hypergraph structure is referenced to [32] but not defined in this paper. Since the central claim is that the periodic system is such a structure, the manuscript should include a self-contained definition of the formal object—what the vertices are, what the hyperedges represent, how the order relation is incorporated, and how chemical similarity is translated into hyperedges—or at least state the representation theorem precisely. Without this, the mathematical core of the essay cannot be evaluated independently of the cited article.
minor comments (3)
  1. [Throughout] There are several typographical errors that should be corrected: 'flevorium' should be 'flerovium' (§1.2 and §2.1), 'pnitcogens' should be 'pnictogens' (§3.1.3), 'devise' should be 'device' (§5) and 'devises' should be 'devices' (§3.1.3), 'Anonimous' in reference [76] should be 'Anonymous', and 'Hadria' in reference [56] should be 'Hadrian'.
  2. [References [72] and [75]] The two 'forthcoming' references are given without authors or titles. If the paper is to cite them at all, fuller details should be provided or the citations should be removed; otherwise the reader cannot trace the empirical and pedagogical claims they are meant to support.
  3. [General] The manuscript is single-authored but consistently uses 'we' and 'our.' This should be harmonized with 'I' or 'the author,' unless a specific reason for the collective voice is given.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the formal claim is imported from prior peer-reviewed work, the no-final-table conclusion follows transparently from the paper's stated definition, and the unavailable empirical anchor is a missing-evidence issue, not a circular reduction.

full rationale

Walking the paper's derivation chain, I find no step in which a predicted quantity is equivalent to a fitted input or in which a load-bearing premise is defined in terms of the conclusion. The central formal claim ('such a structure is an ordered hypergraph') is explicitly delegated to prior work by the same group: 'We have recently shown that such a structure is an ordered hypergraph,[32]' citing Leal and Restrepo, Proc. R. Soc. A 2019. This is a self-citation, but it is a peer-reviewed formal result that the present essay does not re-derive; normal citation of one's own prior theorems is not circular, and the paper does not use the citation to forbid alternatives. The 'no final periodic table' conclusion in Section 3.1.2 follows from the definition stated in Section 2.1: 'A periodic system of chemical elements is the result of ordering and classifying chemical elements by some of their properties.' If any such choice of ordering and classifying properties counts as a system, the multiplicity of systems is an analytic consequence of that definition, not a hidden equivalence between input and output. The definition does not contain the no-final-table claim as a component, and the paper does not use the conclusion to justify the definition. The empirical anchor in Section 5 ('we found the periodic system allowed by such space, which matches, to a large extent, Meyer's and Mendeleev's systems.[72]') rests on a forthcoming publication, and the full 20-million-compound study is described as ongoing; this is a genuine missing-evidence and falsifiability concern, but not circularity, because the similarity and ordering criteria are stated independently and the outcome is not a fitted parameter renamed as a prediction. The paper is self-citation-heavy ([2], [5], [32], [35], [72], [73]), but no load-bearing step reduces to an unverified self-citation chain in the text presented. Accordingly, the appropriate circularity score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 1 invented entities

No free parameters or data fits appear because the paper is a conceptual essay. The main structural commitments are the three domain assumptions listed; the core formal object (ordered hypergraph) is imported from the author's prior work [32]. One conceptual entity, the super structure of all possible periodic systems, is introduced speculatively.

assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption Chemical properties are relational properties among chemical species and can be modeled by graphs and hypergraphs.
    Invoked in sections 2.1 and 3 (citing references [12,52]) as the basis for representing the periodic system as an ordered hypergraph. If chemical similarity is not relational in this way, the formalization loses its grounding.
  • domain assumption Order and similarity are jointly sufficient to define a periodic system of elements.
    The definition in section 2.1 ('It is the interweaving of order and similarity relationships of the chemical elements') treats these two relations as constituting the system; no proof is offered that other relations are not needed.
  • domain assumption The historical 'chemical space' of reported compounds is an appropriate empirical basis for deriving and testing periodic systems.
    Section 5 proposes using all reported chemical substances to verify whether the 1860s system persists; this assumes database coverage and compound-existence data adequately represent chemical similarity and ordering.
invented entities (1)
  • Super structure containing all possible periodic systems
    purpose: Formalizes the claim that no single periodic table is final; all possible systems and their relations are contained in one overarching structure.
    Introduced in section 3.1.2 ('All possible periodic systems lie in that super structure'), it is a conceptual construction with no operational definition or empirical handle provided in this paper.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Challenges for the periodic systems of elements: chemical, historical and mathematical perspectives." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/QWPRXSTO

@misc{pith2026190913621,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Challenges for the periodic systems of elements: chemical, historical and mathematical perspectives},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/QWPRXSTO}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1909.13621}
}
read the original abstract

Unveiling numerical trends among either atomic or equivalent weights that somehow preserved resemblances among elements was frequent in the 1860s. Standing out from the crowd, Meyer and Mendeleev went beyond numerical relationships, certainly motivated by a pedagogical aim. Both were after a system synthesizing the chemical knowledge of their times in an appealing way to be presented to chemistry students. Is it still the periodic system aiming at that? Is it really a map of the current chemistry landscape? Solving these questions entails addressing others such as: what is the periodic system? If it is about chemical elements, do we really know what a chemical element is? Is the system unique? How was and how is currently built up? Is it actually used to conduct chemical research? A suitable tool for chemical predictions? Or is it just a mnemotechnic for fancy trends? Does it have a limit, or multiple ones, instead? Let us try to address these questions and let us begin by analysing the concept of chemical element.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

79 extracted references · 79 canonical work pages

  1. [32]

    W. Leal, G. Restrepo, Proc. R. Soc. A 2019, 475, 20180581

    work page 2019

  2. [1]

    M. D. Gordin in Nature Engaged: Science in Practice from the Renaissance to the Present (Ed.: M. Biagioli), Palgrave Macmillan US, New York, 2012, Chapter 3, pp. 59-82

    work page 2012

  3. [2]

    Restrepo in Chemical element (Eds.: E

    G. Restrepo in Chemical element (Eds.: E. Scerri, E. Ghibaudi), Oxford University Press, New York, 2019

    work page 2019

  4. [3]

    Restrepo, R

    G. Restrepo, R. Harré, HYLE Int. J. Phil. Chem. 2015, 21, 19-38

    work page 2015

  5. [4]

    https://goldbook.iupac.org/html/C/C01022.html (Accessed June 6th 2019)

    IUPAC Gold Book. https://goldbook.iupac.org/html/C/C01022.html (Accessed June 6th 2019)

    work page 2019

  6. [5]

    Restrepo in Mendeleev to Oganesson: A Multidisciplinary Perspective on the Periodic Table (Eds.: E

    G. Restrepo in Mendeleev to Oganesson: A Multidisciplinary Perspective on the Periodic Table (Eds.: E. Scerri, G. Restrepo), Oxford University Press, New York, 2018; Chapter 4, pp. 80-103

    work page 2018

  7. [6]

    Meyer, Ann

    L. Meyer, Ann. Chem. Pharm. 1870, VII Supplementband, 354-364

    work page

  8. [7]

    B. F. Thornton, S. C. Burdette, Nat. Chem. 2013, 5, 979-981

    work page 2013

Show all 79 references
  1. [8]

    J. L. Borges, El hacedor, Emecé, Buenos Aires, 1960

    1960

  2. [9]

    Schädel, Angew

    M. Schädel, Angew. Chem. Int. Edit. 2006, 45, 368-401

    2006

  3. [10]

    Nazarewicz, Nat

    W. Nazarewicz, Nat. Phys. 2018, 14, 537-541

    2018

  4. [11]

    Y . P. Jeannin, Pure Appl. Chem. 1991, 63, 879-886. xxxviiiThe time is ripe for this data driven approach, as there is a worldwide move to adopt policies recognising and promoting data sharing.[76] xxxixA recent example of how data analysis techniques, applied to chemical info...

    1991

  5. [12]

    Schummer, HYLE Int

    J. Schummer, HYLE Int. J. Phil. Chem. 1998, 4, 129-162

    1998

  6. [13]

    Bernal, E

    A. Bernal, E. Llanos, W. Leal, G. Restrepo in Advances in mathematical chemistry and applications (Eds.: S. C. Basak, G. Restrepo, J. L. Villaveces), Bentham-Elsevier, Sharjah, 2015, Chapter 2, pp. 24-54

    2015

  7. [14]

    Mendeleev in Mendeleev on the Periodic Law: Selected Writings, 1869-1905 (Ed.: W

    D. Mendeleev in Mendeleev on the Periodic Law: Selected Writings, 1869-1905 (Ed.: W. B. Jensen), Dover, New York, 2002; Paper 13, pp. 253-314

    1905

  8. [15]

    M. D. Gordin in Mendeleev to Oganesson: A Multidisciplinary Perspective on the Periodic Table (Eds.: E. Scerri, G. Restrepo), Oxford University Press, New York, 2018; Chapter 14, pp. 266-278

    2018

  9. [16]

    M. D. Gordin, A well-ordered thing, Basic Books, New York, 2004

    2004

  10. [17]

    https://books.google.com/ngrams (Accessed June 6th 2019)

    Ngram viewer. https://books.google.com/ngrams (Accessed June 6th 2019)

    2019

  11. [18]

    Bertalanffy, General system theory, George Braziller, New York, 1968

    L. Bertalanffy, General system theory, George Braziller, New York, 1968

    1968

  12. [19]

    Mendeleev in Mendeleev on the Periodic Law: Selected Writings, 1869-1905 (Ed.: W

    D. Mendeleev in Mendeleev on the Periodic Law: Selected Writings, 1869-1905 (Ed.: W. B. Jensen), Dover, New York, 2002; Paper 3, pp. 38-109

    1905

  13. [20]

    Meyer, Die modernen Theorien der Chemie und ihre Bedeutung für die chemische Statik, Verlag von Maruschke & Berendt, Breslau, 1864

    L. Meyer, Die modernen Theorien der Chemie und ihre Bedeutung für die chemische Statik, Verlag von Maruschke & Berendt, Breslau, 1864

  14. [21]

    M. D. Gordin, Ab Imperio, 2013, 3, 53-82

    2013

  15. [22]

    M. D. Gordin, Science 2019, 363, 471-473

    2019

  16. [23]

    http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/periodic-table

    Cambridge dictionary. http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/periodic-table. (Accessed September 11th 2017)

    2017

  17. [24]

    Scerri, Nat

    E. Scerri, Nat. Chem. 2009, 1, 679–680

    2009

  18. [25]

    Scerri in Handbook of the philosophy of science (Eds.: R

    E. Scerri in Handbook of the philosophy of science (Eds.: R. F. Hendry, P. Needham, A. I. Woody), Elsevier, Oxford, 2012, V olume 6: Philosophy of chemistry, Part 4, pp. 329–338

    2012

  19. [26]

    Neubauer, Neue Zürcher Zeitung , 2019

    U. Neubauer, Neue Zürcher Zeitung , 2019. https://www.nzz.ch/wissenschaft/periodensystem-der-elemente-150-jahre-ordnung-im-reich- der-chemie-ld.1456162 (Accessed June 6th 2019)

    2019

  20. [27]

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Periodic_table

    Wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Periodic_table. (Accessed September 11th 2017)

    2017

  21. [28]

    https://www.britannica.com/science/periodic-table-of-the- elements

    Encyclopaedia Britannica. https://www.britannica.com/science/periodic-table-of-the- elements. (Accessed September 11th 2017)

    2017

  22. [29]

    N. W. Ashcroft, Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. 2017, 56, 10224–10227

    2017

  23. [30]

    Scerri, A tale of seven elements, Oxford University Press, New York, 2013

    E. Scerri, A tale of seven elements, Oxford University Press, New York, 2013

    2013

  24. [31]

    https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/periodic_table

    Oxford dictionary. https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/periodic_table. (Accessed September 11th 2017)

    2017

  25. [33]

    P. J. Karol in Mendeleev to Oganesson: A Multidisciplinary Perspective on the Periodic Table, Eds: E. Scerri and G. Restrepo, Oxford University Press; New York, 2018; Chapter 1, pp. 8-42

    2018

  26. [34]

    B. F. Thornton, S. C. Burdette, Nat. Chem. 2013, 5, 350-352

    2013

  27. [35]

    W. Leal, G. Restrepo, A. Bernal, MATCH Commun. Math. Comput. Chem . 2012, 68, 417-442

    2012

  28. [36]

    Restrepo in Elements Old and New: Discoveries, Developments, Challenges, and Environmental Implications (Eds.: M

    G. Restrepo in Elements Old and New: Discoveries, Developments, Challenges, and Environmental Implications (Eds.: M. A. Benvenuto, T. Williamson), ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society, Washington, DC, 2017, Chapter 5, pp. 95-110

    2017

  29. [37]

    Mendeleev in Mendeleev on the Periodic Law: Selected Writings, 1869-1905 (Ed.: W

    D. Mendeleev in Mendeleev on the Periodic Law: Selected Writings, 1869-1905 (Ed.: W. B. Jensen), Dover, New York, 2002; Paper 2, pp. 18-37

    1905

  30. [38]

    R. L. Melen, Science, 2019, 363, 479-484

    2019

  31. [39]

    Rayner-Canham, J

    G. Rayner-Canham, J. Chem. Educ. 2000, 77, 1053-1056

    2000

  32. [40]

    Glawe, A

    H. Glawe, A. Sanna, E. K. U. Gross, M. A. L. Marques, New J. Phys. 2016, 18, 093011

    2016

  33. [41]

    Kean, Science, 2019, 363, 466-470

    S. Kean, Science, 2019, 363, 466-470

    2019

  34. [42]

    Türler, Chimia, 2019, 73, 173-178

    A. Türler, Chimia, 2019, 73, 173-178

    2019

  35. [43]

    Ball, Nature, 2019, 565, 552-555

    P. Ball, Nature, 2019, 565, 552-555

    2019

  36. [44]

    Haba, Nat

    H. Haba, Nat. Chem. 2019, 11, 10-13

    2019

  37. [45]

    Pulkkinen, Abstract 23, ISPC 2018

    K. Pulkkinen, Abstract 23, ISPC 2018. https://www.bristol.ac.uk/arts/events/2018/philosophy-of-chemistry-conference.html (Accessed June 6th 2019)

    2018

  38. [46]

    Mendelejeff, Ber

    D. Mendelejeff, Ber. Dtsch. Chem. Ges. 1871, 4, 348-352

  39. [47]

    Mendeleev in Mendeleev on the Periodic Law: Selected Writings, 1869-1905 (Ed.: W

    D. Mendeleev in Mendeleev on the Periodic Law: Selected Writings, 1869-1905 (Ed.: W. B. Jensen), Dover, New York, 2002; Paper 6, pp. 135-137

    1905

  40. [48]

    Restrepo in Essays in the philosophy of chemistry (Eds.: E

    G. Restrepo in Essays in the philosophy of chemistry (Eds.: E. Scerri, G. Fisher), Oxford University Press, New York, 2016; Chapter 15, pp. 332-351

    2016

  41. [49]

    J. L. Andersen, C. Flamm, D. Merkle, P. F. Stadler, J. Syst. Chem. 2013, 4, 4

    2013

  42. [50]

    J. R. Smith, Persistence and Periodicity: A Study of Mendeleev's Contribution to the Foundations of Chemistry. Doctoral thesis. 1976, King’s College, London

    1976

  43. [51]

    Mendeleev in Mendeleev on the Periodic Law: Selected Writings, 1869-1905 (Ed.: W

    D. Mendeleev in Mendeleev on the Periodic Law: Selected Writings, 1869-1905 (Ed.: W. B. Jensen), Dover, New York, 2002; Paper 11, pp. 192-226

    1905

  44. [52]

    Bernal, E

    A. Bernal, E. E. Daza, HYLE Int. J. Phil. Chem. 2010, 16, 80-103

    2010

  45. [53]

    Scerri, Chem

    E. Scerri, Chem. Eur. J. 2019, 25, 1-7

    2019

  46. [54]

    Mendelejeff, Z

    D. Mendelejeff, Z. Chem. 1869, 12, 405-406

  47. [55]

    Pyykkö, Phys

    P. Pyykkö, Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys. 2011, 13, 161-168

    2011

  48. [56]

    Yourcenar, Memoirs of Hadria, Secker & Warburg, London, 1964

    M. Yourcenar, Memoirs of Hadria, Secker & Warburg, London, 1964

    1964

  49. [57]

    Lemonick, Chem

    S. Lemonick, Chem. Eng. News 2019, January 7, 26-29

    2019

  50. [58]

    Mendelejeff, Ann

    D. Mendelejeff, Ann. Chem. Pharm. 1871, VIII Supplementband, 133-229

  51. [59]

    Mendeleev in Mendeleev on the Periodic Law: Selected Writings, 1869-1905 (Ed.: W

    D. Mendeleev in Mendeleev on the Periodic Law: Selected Writings, 1869-1905 (Ed.: W. B. Jensen), Dover, New York, 2002; Paper 12, pp. 227-252

    1905

  52. [60]

    D. J. Klein, J. Math. Chem. 1995, 18, 321–348

    1995

  53. [61]

    Restrepo, D

    G. Restrepo, D. J. Klein, J. Math. Chem. 2011, 49, 1311–1321

    2011

  54. [62]

    Panda, S

    A. Panda, S. Vijayakumar, D. J. Klein, A. Ryzhov, J. Phys. Org. Chem. 2013, 26, 917– 926

    2013

  55. [63]

    Zheng, P

    X. Zheng, P. Zheng, R. Z. Zhang, Chem. Sci. 2018, 9, 8426–8432

    2018

  56. [64]

    F. Feng, X. He, Y . Liu, L. Nie, T. S. Chua, 2018, Proceedings of the 2018 World Wide Web conference, WWW ’18, pp. 1523–1532. Republic and Canton of Geneva, Switzerland: International World Wide Web Conferences Steering Committee

    2018

  57. [65]

    Personal communication (March 27th 2019)

    2019

  58. [66]

    Brüggemann R, G

    R. Brüggemann R, G. P. Patil, Ranking and prioritization for multi-indicator systems, Springer, Berlin, New York, 2011

    2011

  59. [67]

    J. H. Vincent, Philos. Mag. 1902, 4, 103-115

    1902

  60. [68]

    Reich, Nature, 2010, 355, doi:10.1038/468355a

    S. Reich, Nature, 2010, 355, doi:10.1038/468355a

    2010 doi

  61. [69]

    Arsenescu, C

    R. Arsenescu, C. Baglin, H. P. Beck, K. Borer, A. Bussière, K. Elsener, P. Gorodetzky, J. P. Guillaud, S. Kabana, R. Klingenberg, G. Lehmann, T. Lindén, K. D. Lohmann, R. Mommsen, U. Moser, K. Pretzl, J. Schacher, R. Spiwoks, J. Tuominiemi, M. Weber, New J. Phys. 2003, 5, 1

    2003

  62. [70]

    Stedall, Mathematics Emerging: A sourcebook 1540-1900 , Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2008

    J. Stedall, Mathematics Emerging: A sourcebook 1540-1900 , Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2008

    1900

  63. [71]

    Cartlidge, Nature, 2018, 558, 175-176

    E. Cartlidge, Nature, 2018, 558, 175-176

    2018

  64. [72]

    Forthcoming publication (Nat. Chem.)

  65. [73]

    E. J. Llanos, W. Leal, D. H. Luu, J. Jost, P. F. Stadler, G. Restrepo, P . Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2019, https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1816039116

    2019 doi

  66. [74]

    Personal communication (November 10th 2015)

    2015

  67. [75]

    Forthcoming publication (Substantia)

  68. [76]

    Data, 2019, 6, 1-2

    Anonimous, Sci. Data, 2019, 6, 1-2

    2019

  69. [77]

    Writer, Lithium-Ion Batteries, Springer, 2019

    B. Writer, Lithium-Ion Batteries, Springer, 2019

    2019

  70. [78]

    Schummer, Scientometrics, 1997, 39, 107-123

    J. Schummer, Scientometrics, 1997, 39, 107-123

    1997

  71. [79]

    Mendeleev in Mendeleev on the Periodic Law: Selected Writings, 1869-1905 (Ed.: W

    D. Mendeleev in Mendeleev on the Periodic Law: Selected Writings, 1869-1905 (Ed.: W. B. Jensen), Dover, New York, 2002; Paper 9, pp. 162-188

    1905

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.