Missing the point: are journals using the ideal number of decimal places? [version 2; referees: 2 approved]

• Main Author: Adrian G Barnett
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Published: F1000 Research Ltd 2018-07-01
• Series: F1000Research
• Online Access: https://f1000research.com/articles/7-450/v2

Background: The scientific literature is growing in volume and reducing in readability. Poorly presented numbers decrease readability by either fatiguing the reader with too many decimal places, or confusing the reader by not using enough decimal places, and so making it difficult to comprehend differences between numbers. There are guidelines for the ideal number of decimal places, and in this paper I examine how often percents meet these guidelines. Methods: Percents were extracted from the abstracts of research articles published in 2017 in 23 selected journals. Percents were excluded if they referred to a statistical interval, typically a 95% confidence interval. Counts and percents were calculated for the number of percents using too few or too many decimal places, and these percents were compared between journals. Results: The sample had over 43,000 percents from around 9,500 abstracts. Only 55% of the percents were presented according to the guidelines. The most common issue was using too many decimal places (33%), rather than too few (12%). There was a wide variation in presentation between journals, with the range of ideal presentation from a low of 53% (JAMA) to a high of 80% (Lancet Planetary Health).  Conclusions: Many percents did not adhere to the guidelines on using decimal places. Using the recommended number of decimal places would make papers easier to read and reduce the burden on readers, and potentially improve comprehension. It should be possible to provide automated feedback to authors on which numbers could be better presented.