"Grothendieck group" also refers to a different but related construction which takes as input a category $C$ of some sort, typically abelian, and returns as output the free abelian group on isomorphism classes of objects $c \in C$ quotiented by some relations. If we quotient by the relation $[c \oplus d] \sim [c] + [d]$ then we get the Grothendieck group of the commutative monoid given by isomorphism classes of objects in $C$ under direct sum, but another common choice is to quotient by the relation that if $0 \to a \to b \to c \to 0$ is a short exact sequence then $[b] \sim [a] + [c]$; this is not a special case of the Grothendieck group of a monoid. This construction can be used, for example, to define certain flavors of K-theory, which is what Grothendieck used it to do and why it's named after him.
The Grothendieck ring of varieties refers to a related construction where $C$ is the category of varieties over some field and we quotient the free abelian group on isomorphism classes of varieties by the relation $[X \setminus Y] \sim [X] - [Y]$; this has a similar flavor to but is not a special case of the above construction for abelian categories, nor is it a special case of the Grothendieck group of a monoid. You can talk about a ring structure on the Grothendieck group if $C$ has a monoidal structure which distributes over whatever additive structure you're using to define the Grothendieck group; in the case of varieties this is the cartesian product.
I don't think "Grothendieck ring" is standard terminology for the Grothendieck group of (the underlying additive monoid of) a semiring. I would avoid it since the most common example of a Grothendieck ring is not a special case of this construction anyway.
Lastly, we don't have a field of fractions unless our commutative ring is an integral domain, and that will rarely be the case; for example Bjorn Poonen showed that the Grothendieck ring of varieties is not a domain. Nobody appears to use the term "Grothendieck field" at all.
Overall I would avoid the term "Grothendieck group" to refer to the monoid construction because I think it's too confusing, and I would avoid the term "Grothendieck ring" to refer to the semiring construction similarly. I might use "group completion" and "ring completion" instead.