I acknowledge the authors' concerns regarding statistical representation of differential expression data in order to improve reproduciblity. However, in my experience, the use of logFC or log2FC doesn't pose much of a problem to the scientific community, and therefore I don't see the point of introducing a new term. Moreover, a call for using "log2FC" by default would suit the purpose - in my opinion - better, since this term, in contrast to "loget", indicates the base used. Also, I think the manuscript should include a call for clear description of a) filtering methods used prior to statistical testing, and b) clear description of statistical threshold used to score a gene/protein/etc. as differentially expressed. Unclear reporting of these parameters poses a much greater problem when it comes to interpretation and reproducibility.
That said, I support publication in "Matters", since I believe the scientific community should decide whether to implement the term "loget" or not.