Reply to “Do we really need to account for run bias when producing analytical results with stated uncertainty? Comment on ‘Treatment of bias in estimating measurement uncertainty’”

Abstract

The Guide to the Expression of Uncertainty in Measurement (GUM) requires that measurement results are corrected for all recognized systematic effects. Therefore the answer to the comment of Kadis is unequivocally ‘yes’, run bias does need to be accounted for. The approach which combines a properly determined repeatability standard deviation and the uncertainty of the assessment of bias is a valid basis of the estimation of uncertainty of a measurement result. This approach produces a realisitic estimate of measurement uncertainty rather than a ‘safe’ one.