![Author ORCID: We display the ORCID iD icon alongside authors names on our website to acknowledge that the ORCiD has been authenticated when entered by the user. To view the users ORCiD record click the icon. [opens in a new tab]](https://chemrxiv.org/engage/assets/public/chemrxiv/images/logos/orcid.png)
Abstract
In this article I critique some grounds relied on by Scerri (2021) in provisionally suggesting that IUPAC could perhaps make a ruling that Group 3 of the periodic table should be composed of Sc-Y-Lu-Lr. My concerns have to do with the philosophical meaning of “compromise”; the popularity of periodic tables instead showing group 3 as Sc-Y-La-Ac; and the rarity of the 32-column form of periodic table. IUPAC has further evidenced a long-standing reluctance to issue guidance on the use of any particular form of periodic table, including the table appearing on its own web site. The provisional report of the IUPAC Group 3 project lacks objectiveness on these bases. IUPAC could nevertheless issue some carefully worded guidance to resolve the situation.
