Editors should allow only significant digits
“Out of 80 experiments, 45 (56.3%) had a favourable outcome.” If you read this sentence in a manuscript, would you want to edit the figures?I certainly would. There are too many digits in ‘56.3%’. The decimal 3 is meaningless; 56% is precise en...
Main Author: | |
---|---|
Format: | Article |
Language: | English |
Published: |
Pensoft Publishers
2020-02-01
|
Series: | European Science Editing |
Online Access: | https://ese.arphahub.com/article/50999/download/pdf/ |
id |
doaj-0764113829cf437f8956ec1184ee6ae2 |
---|---|
record_format |
Article |
spelling |
doaj-0764113829cf437f8956ec1184ee6ae22021-05-21T15:20:59ZengPensoft PublishersEuropean Science Editing 2518-33542020-02-01461210.3897/ese.2020.e5099950999Editors should allow only significant digitsArjan Polderman0Retired managing editor and copy editor“Out of 80 experiments, 45 (56.3%) had a favourable outcome.” If you read this sentence in a manuscript, would you want to edit the figures?I certainly would. There are too many digits in ‘56.3%’. The decimal 3 is meaningless; 56% is precise enough. If the number of favourable outcomes is 44, the percentage score is 55%; with 46 successes it is 58%. There is no uncertainty here.But what should we do when we are dealing with 237 out of 623? Both 237 and 238 result in a score of 38%. Wouldn’t it be wise to distinguish these outcomes by writing 38.0% and 38.2% respectively? Well, if such precision is important, we can simply present the absolute values. Absolute values are always accurate; percentages and fractions are only approximations.What might be the purpose of accurate percentages? I appreciate that percentage scores and fractions are better for comparisons than absolute values. With percentages I can see at a glance that 237/623 is more than 165/465 (38% and 35% respectively). Percentages are quick – and inaccurate, even with additional decimals.https://ese.arphahub.com/article/50999/download/pdf/ |
collection |
DOAJ |
language |
English |
format |
Article |
sources |
DOAJ |
author |
Arjan Polderman |
spellingShingle |
Arjan Polderman Editors should allow only significant digits European Science Editing |
author_facet |
Arjan Polderman |
author_sort |
Arjan Polderman |
title |
Editors should allow only significant digits |
title_short |
Editors should allow only significant digits |
title_full |
Editors should allow only significant digits |
title_fullStr |
Editors should allow only significant digits |
title_full_unstemmed |
Editors should allow only significant digits |
title_sort |
editors should allow only significant digits |
publisher |
Pensoft Publishers |
series |
European Science Editing |
issn |
2518-3354 |
publishDate |
2020-02-01 |
description |
“Out of 80 experiments, 45 (56.3%) had a favourable outcome.” If you read this sentence in a manuscript, would you want to edit the figures?I certainly would. There are too many digits in ‘56.3%’. The decimal 3 is meaningless; 56% is precise enough. If the number of favourable outcomes is 44, the percentage score is 55%; with 46 successes it is 58%. There is no uncertainty here.But what should we do when we are dealing with 237 out of 623? Both 237 and 238 result in a score of 38%. Wouldn’t it be wise to distinguish these outcomes by writing 38.0% and 38.2% respectively? Well, if such precision is important, we can simply present the absolute values. Absolute values are always accurate; percentages and fractions are only approximations.What might be the purpose of accurate percentages? I appreciate that percentage scores and fractions are better for comparisons than absolute values. With percentages I can see at a glance that 237/623 is more than 165/465 (38% and 35% respectively). Percentages are quick – and inaccurate, even with additional decimals. |
url |
https://ese.arphahub.com/article/50999/download/pdf/ |
work_keys_str_mv |
AT arjanpolderman editorsshouldallowonlysignificantdigits |
_version_ |
1721431505122623488 |