Atomic mass
The term "atomic weight" is being phased out slowly and being replaced by "relative atomic mass", in most current usage. This shift in nomenclature reaches back to the 1960s and has been the source of much debate in the scientific community, which was triggered by the adoption of the unified atomic mass unit and the realization that weight was in some ways an inappropriate term. The argument for keeping the term "atomic weight" was primarily that it was a well understood term to those in the field, that the term "atomic mass" was already in use (as it is currently defined) and that the term "relative atomic mass" might be easily confused with "relative isotopic mass" (the mass of a single atom of a given nuclide, expressed dimensionlessly relative to 1/12 of the mass of carbon-12; see section above).
Atomic mass
In the case of many elements that have one naturally occurring isotope (mononuclidic elements) or one dominant isotope, the actual numerical similarity/difference between the atomic mass of the most common isotope, and the (standard) relative atomic mass or (standard) atomic weight can be small or even nil, and does not affect most bulk calculations. However, such an error can exist and even be important when considering individual atoms for elements that are not mononuclidic.