How Fit Are Your Data?

Most laboratories aim to produce data of the highest quality. Trying to lower uncertainties to infinitesimal figures and push detection limits even lower are valid goals. However, is it possible to overachieve? Are old data still of good enough quality to be usable? In a geochemical context, the main goal of producing analytical results is to answer geological or environmental questions. Not all scientific problems require the same data quality. What is really required are data of adequate quality – i.e., ‘fit‐for‐purpose’– to ensure that the geological problem at hand can be solved. Furthermore, it is doubtful that uncertainties and reproducibilities associated with field sampling are better than those from laboratories. It is thus proposed that, as geoanalysts, we encourage data users (students, colleagues or referees) to ensure that their analytical results are of sufficient quality to solve the problem. However, authors have to demonstrate, through the use of reproducibility testing, reference and quality control materials, that the quality of their results is sufficient to solve the problem. Uncertainties and detection limits in publications should not only be evaluated with respect to a set value, such as 10%, but also with regard to the geological problem to be solved.