So, which notation should we use? First and foremost, it is important to clarify that this text is not meant to dictate what is right or wrong but rather to spark a discussion on the subject. Secondly, the author must acknowledge the lack of compelling arguments for favoring any particular notation beyond a personal opinion. Given this, an elegant approach could be to explicitly state once which REF is being used to represent the potential (with preferences for RHE or SHE scales ), e.g. in the experimental section, and subsequent employ only "E / V" thereafter. However, this procedure is clearly not working, as it is quite frequent to find a double description: in the experimental section and throughout the rest (text and figures). Similarly, the recent practice of using "E -iR" to explicitly state that the values shown have had their ohmic drop corrected, even though this has already been described in the experimental section. In the end, the use of example (i) "E / V (vs. REF)" seems to be most fitting choice. Beyond the points discussed here, the adoption of standardized suggestions has often faced resistance from the scientific community, as evidenced by ongoing disagreements over units such as temperature (°C and K) or the representation of molarity (mol L -1 , mol/L, mol/m 3 , M), among others. Given this, opting for example (i) presents a clear advantage, as it is already used by most of the electrochemistry community and would likely require less effort to incorporate. However, it is worth acknowledging that with the advent of new technologies that often combine multiple techniques resulting in combined units, a minimalist notation using subscripts (e.g. "ERHE / V", akin to Ref. ) is quite appealing and aligns with Trasatti's text for IUPAC .