L. M. Martyushev, V. D. Seleznev (2006), Physics Reports 426(1), 1–45 — DOI-10.1016/j.physrep.2005.12.001
Standing in the record
Seeded on 2026-10-02 with the critics of Prigogine’s extremum principles and the maximum-entropy-production (MEP) literature, at the owner’s request to fill out the record’s coverage of dissipative structures. No anthology topic holds it, and the anthology does not hold it.
Deferred because neither the text nor the publisher’s abstract could be
reached, so no NOTE is filed and nothing here describes its argument. What
the record can say comes from the works filed beside it.
- Kleidon’s review (LIT-519, read) names it, with Martyushev 2007, as the existing review of MEP’s “physical foundation”. It defers to it instead of covering that ground. For “technical discussion” of how MEP differs from Prigogine’s minimum principle, it points to a different paper, Martyushev, Nazarova and Seleznev 2007 (J. Phys. A 40:371), which the record does not hold.
- Dewar 2003 (LIT-521, read) cites the same authors’ earlier crystal-growth work (Doklady Physics, 2000) as empirical support for MEP.
- Semantic Scholar’s machine-generated summary (not the authors’ abstract, and not checked against the text) says the review’s objectives are “summation and analysis of studies dealing with MEPP and the thermodynamic and statistical basis of the principle (including the relationship of MEPP with the second law of thermodynamics and Prigogine’s principle)”.
It is the reading that would settle two questions this batch leaves open:
- how the MEP literature itself relates MEP to Prigogine’s minimum principle, beyond Kleidon’s relaxation-versus-selection distinction;
- whether it answers Landauer’s 1975 objection (LIT-532) that steady-state selection is kinetic.
It predates Grinstein and Linsker’s critique of Dewar (LIT-525), so it cannot reflect it.