You talk, we understand – The way out of the tower of Babel

Importance of the topic

The ability to communicate measurement-related requirements and results unambiguously is fundamental for reliable laboratory practice, fair accreditation and efficient use of analytical data. Terminology inconsistencies, multiple translations and context-dependent meanings of common words (for example, several different senses of the word "standard") create risks of misinterpretation that can lead to wasted resources, incorrect decisions or non-compliant outputs. Harmonised, accessible definitions of metrological and analytical concepts support comparability of results, consistent assessment by accreditation bodies and the production of measurement data that is fit for its intended use.

Objectives and overview of the document

The source document highlights the problem of inconsistent terminology in measurement science and presents the role of the International Vocabulary of Metrology (VIM) as a unifying reference. It explains practical barriers that remain for laboratory personnel when using formal VIM definitions and introduces a complementary, practitioner-focused Eurachem guide intended to clarify terms and provide examples relevant to chemical and biological measurements. The core objective is to promote a common language to reduce misunderstanding and to support harmonised laboratory assessment worldwide.

Methodology and scope

The approach taken in the materials summarised is primarily descriptive and consensus-based: authoritative references (notably the VIM) are identified as normative foundations for standards such as ISO/IEC 17025, ISO 15189 and ISO/IEC 17043, and then interpreted into accessible explanations and examples tailored to analysts. The Eurachem guide was produced to bridge the gap between short, formal VIM definitions and the practical needs of laboratories, with emphasis on chemical and biological contexts, illustrative examples and clarifications of recently revised terminology (for example, terminology shifts like "within-laboratory reproducibility" versus "intermediate precision").

Main findings and discussion

Key observations and messages from the source are:

• Formal metrological definitions in the VIM are essential but can be terse and abstract; laboratory staff may find them difficult to apply directly to day-to-day analytical work.
• Translations and sector-specific terminology introduce additional ambiguity. Different sectors may use different local terms for the same VIM concept, and translators can inadvertently compound confusion.
• Some terms have undergone substantial redefinition or renaming to better fit chemical and biological measurements; this evolution requires active dissemination to avoid misunderstandings.
• Conceptual distinctions that are frequently conflated in practice include accuracy, trueness and precision. A useful practical breakdown is: precision — closeness between measurement results; trueness — closeness of the mean of results to a reference value; accuracy — closeness of an individual result to the true value. The document illustrates how combinations of bias and variability produce different measurement quality scenarios (e.g., precise but biased, imprecise but unbiased), and how improving both trueness and precision yields better accuracy.
• The lack of clear understanding around other terms (e.g., detection limit, method validation vs verification, calibration vs performance verification, measurement standard, metrological traceability) can affect method selection, validation strategy and interpretation of measurement uncertainty and fitness for purpose.

The discussion emphasises that a shared understanding of these concepts is not merely academic: it underpins accreditation decisions, proficiency testing, reference material production and the reliable transfer of measurement requirements between clients, laboratories and regulators.

Benefits and practical applications of the guidance

The accessible, context-rich guidance proposed by Eurachem provides several practical benefits:

• Improved clarity for laboratory analysts, quality managers and directors when interpreting normative requirements in accreditation standards.
• Reduced risk of inconsistent implementation of requirements across laboratories and sectors, supporting fairer accreditation and inter-laboratory comparability.
• Better-informed choices about method selection, validation and verification, and clearer communication about measurement fitness for intended use.
• Useful educational material for teaching and training, supporting capacity building and consistent application of metrological concepts.

Practical uses include internal laboratory training, development of standard operating procedures aligned with VIM terminology, preparation for accreditation assessments and clearer reporting to stakeholders that rely on measurement data.

Future trends and potential applications

Several directions can extend the impact of harmonised terminology:

• Development of multilingual, annotated glossaries and interactive tools that map VIM concepts to sector-specific terminology and to commonly used translations.
• Integration of clarified terminology and examples into digital resources such as e-learning, laboratory information management systems (LIMS) and automated document templates to reduce human translation errors.
• Broader dissemination and periodic updating of practitioner-focused guidance to reflect evolving measurement practices (e.g., bioanalytical advances, novel analytical platforms) and to track terminology changes.
• Closer alignment between standards bodies, accreditation entities and training organisations to ensure consistent interpretations during audits and proficiency testing.
• Application of harmonised definitions to machine-readable metadata standards for analytical datasets to improve interoperability and enable reliable automated data use.

Conclusion

Clear, accessible and harmonised metrological terminology is a foundational requirement for reliable analytical practice, fair accreditation and effective communication of measurement results. While the VIM provides the normative backbone, targeted interpretative guidance—such as the Eurachem guide—helps bridge the gap to everyday laboratory practice, reducing ambiguity introduced by terse definitions and varied translations. Adoption of such guidance, together with education and digital tools, will improve measurement comparability and support decision making based on fit-for-purpose data.

References

1. JCGM 200:2012. International Vocabulary of Metrology — Basic and General Concepts and Associated Terms (VIM), 3rd edition.
2. Barwick V. J. (Ed.). Eurachem Guide: Terminology in Analytical Measurement — Introduction to VIM3, 2nd edition, 2023. ISBN 978-0-948926-40-2.