I was wondering how often does the IUPAC update its Gold Book, ie, IUPAC Compendium of Chemical Terminology - the Gold Book.

It poped in my mind when I saw this question about jellium aromaticity, that the term should be there. However, it was not. Whereas, the term has been used several times in the linked references (1 2), which I like to consider credible.

So, I was wondering how up-to-date the book is and how much can one rely on it for latest information.

PS While I understand that this question is primarily and heavily opinion based, I think it is equally relevant to all of us as we delve further in the chemical world.

  • 1
    $\begingroup$ It looks like Gold Book, the online edition, is a rolling release with corrections and additions done when they are done. $\endgroup$ – andselisk May 24 '19 at 12:49
  • $\begingroup$ As for your suggestion to introduce iupac tag, currently it looks like there is no need for it: Do we need the iupac tag?. If you disagree, feel free to discuss this matter on Meta. In fact, it's better to search or ask on Meta first whether tax $x$ or $y$ would be necessary beforehand. $\endgroup$ – andselisk May 24 '19 at 12:50
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Oh, and, the Gold book is up-to-date, don't worry about that. It is the book which decides what's up-to-date. $\endgroup$ – William R. Ebenezer May 24 '19 at 12:59
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ There is a lot of terminology that probably never catches the attention of IUPAC because it is rarely used, or only in very special cases and by a small subset of chemists or physicists, especially if it is something new and in development. This is perhaps the case with jellium aromaticity. There is something called the jellium model, a model that's used in the solid-state materials field but might otherwise seem somewhat obscure to chemists. A search for this term should lead you to a world of hits. $\endgroup$ – Buck Thorn May 24 '19 at 13:49
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ IUPAC.org appears to have on line meeting minutes and activity reports of the various committees and sub-committees. It would also seem that work continues through the year. It would seem that updates occur as they come up and agreed upon, not a fixed times (as they used to do pre-web). $\endgroup$ – Jon Custer May 24 '19 at 16:01

As various users have contributed to the arrival of this answer, it goes to the community.

Firstly, the IUPAC is the authority of chemistry, which decides on and accepts terminology for international compatibility so that information can be unambiguously expressed by researchers, scholars, educators and students. So, it can be finally concluded that unless it is IUPAC approved, it is not official terminology.

Secondly, since the IUPAC is an enormous organisation, dealing at a global level, it can be understood that changes will be a little delayed as the information has to be checked for authenticity and a common end has to be reached. For example, it took quite some time to decide on the newcomers of the Periodic Table(Elements of Atomic Number 113-118).

Thirdly, a lot of terminology has a very limited scope and can be at the very least left out. For example, the iupac tag was dropped due to its limited scope.(See comments above).

Lastly, I thank the community for the comments which have fabricated the "bonds" of this answer.

  • $\begingroup$ I commend your efforts for this. $\endgroup$ – William R. Ebenezer May 24 '19 at 19:12
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ The maintainer of the Gold Book is Prof. Stuart Chalk (University of North Florida). As he says at the IUPAC Gold Book site: "Please don't hesitate to send any comments or suggestions to the maintainer, Stuart Chalk." Stuart has always (I have known him for about 25 years or so) been a very reasonable and smart fellow. Getting an actual term approved by IUPAC would require action by an appropriate IUPAC committee and I think Bryn Hibbert (Prof. Emeritus, UNSW, AU) recently completed that task: he chaired the committee. Prof. Chalk would know for sure, so ask him if you are interested. $\endgroup$ – Ed V Jun 3 '19 at 2:42
  • $\begingroup$ Thanks for digging that up for me $\endgroup$ – user79161 Jun 5 '19 at 17:11

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.