thank you. Far be from me any intention to apportion "guilt" -
but of course volunteers always run a certain risk!
I have seen the term "normalization" used clearly in the sense of
zero-setting in an extremely respectable and otherwise excellent
paper, without any connection to your overall equation of
adjustment. So, no guilt for you there. Another paper, still also
respectable (at least) does the same, but I can't recheck it just
now. Also, I have no intention of pointing a finger by giving
references. I did this once, in trace elements, in GCA 1970, but
of course "policing" turns people off and may not always help the
cause of transparent standardization!
Your sensible equation is another matter, insofar as it bestows
the name normalization on a combination of zero setting and
actual normalization, which is a more subtle and difficult
process. This could lead to a watering down of the concept in
analytical practice. People who think your expansion factor "a"
is unity or 'close enough' for a particular purpose (often a
legitimate assumption) can then say they have "normalized" their
data, getting the more difficult process of normalization quasi
into the bargain!
Since you say you are "adjusting" the data, why not talk of Tyler
Coplen's double adjustment, which consists of both zero setting
and proportional scaling? What do you think? At any rate, this is
no big deal; together with possible further replies it may help
P.S. We have recently had a case where the expansion factor
showed fairly short term significant variations: it need not be a
constant for a particular machine or month or week or day. Of
course, hm, this may not be no problem with modern off-the-shelf
mass spectrometers... P.
([log in to unmask])