Below is a copy of a message I sent to Peter Deines on the matter of journal
policy (in this case GCA) regarding the adoption of the V-XXXX notation and
all it implies.  I didn^t go into too much detail in this message because
Peter and I had already communicated about the problems entailed.  At least
you will see that there are some serious deliberations in progress to deal
with the matter.  MANY scientists are opposed to this recommendation and
will not go along with it.  

Hi Peter,

Thanks for your message concerning the standards policy you would like to
endorse for your journal.  Even though your draft is in the right direction
(not requiring that the V-s be appended), it is not strong enough in my
opinion.  I think that the IUPAC was ill advised by a group of scientists
who did not  understand the ramifications of their actions.  More
importantly,  the views of  the members of this group do not represent those
of  the established workers in the field.  From my feedback that I shared
with you, these scientists will not accept this recommendation.  We do not
need an embarrassing revolution over such a matter, but I believe that a
mistake was made and that the IUPAC should rescind their recommendation.  

There are some open discussions going on now among the isogeochem network
group, a group seemingly dominated by enthusiastic,  mostly new workers
interested in analyzing carbonates, waters, and organic matter for purposes
of palaeoceanography, palaeoclimatolgy, etc.  There are many other
discussions of this matter going on among private groups.  I hear about it
everywhere I go.   It is obvious from what is said and written that many do
not understand what is going on.  Most new workers were ready to put a V- in
front of the acronyms for the standards (EVEN PDB!!) because they thought it
a mandate from on high.  To others, putting a V- in front of these acronyms
meant that they had properly normalized their data to the values accepted
for the international standards.  There is almost no appreciation of the
inherent errors of sample preparation, extraction chemistry and the like.
Two or three messages that appeared on the network dealt with the NECESSITY
in "modern research in isotope geochemistry" to distinguish natural
substances that differ in d18O or d13C by only 0.02 permil!   Appending the
V- was somehow related to being able to do this kind of work.  I could
hardly believe what I was reading.  Of course attainment of this kind of
accuracy is poppycock engendered in part by the companies that manufacture
mass spectrometers.  One needs only to look at the notebooks in any properly
functioning stable isotope laboratory to have an appreciation of the errors
encountered in stable isotope geochemistry.

Among editors and associate editors, I have discussed V-  with you, Rob Van
der Voo, Bruce Taylor and Lynn Walter.  Bob Clayton wrote a thoughtful
letter on the matter to Gunther and I presume you have read his letter.   I
hope that the journal editors are communicating with each other on this
issue so as to assure a uniform policy for reporting stable isotope data.
It was I who blew the whistle on this unfortunate recommendation last May,
but I am too busy with other pressing matters to do something more effective
at the present time.   I would be willing to spearhead the drafting of an
appropriate document to the IUPAC but not until autumn when I am back at the
University of Michigan.

Thanks for your interest.

Regards,

Jim
James R. O'Neil
Institute de Mineralogie et Petrographie
 BFSH2
Universite de Lausanne
1015 Lausanne
Switzerland
Tel: 41/21/692 43 65
Fax: 41/21/692 43 05