Editors should allow only significant digits

Q2 Social Sciences European Science Editing Pub Date : 2020-02-18 DOI:10.3897/ese.2020.e50999
A. Polderman
{"title":"Editors should allow only significant digits","authors":"A. Polderman","doi":"10.3897/ese.2020.e50999","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"“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.\n 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.\n 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.","PeriodicalId":35360,"journal":{"name":"European Science Editing","volume":"46 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-02-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Science Editing","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3897/ese.2020.e50999","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

“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.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
编辑器应只允许有效数字
“在80个实验中,有45个(56.3%)的结果是好的。”如果你在手稿中读到这句话,你想编辑这些数字吗?我当然会。“56.3%”中的数字太多。小数点3没有意义;56%已经足够精确了。如果有利结果的数量为44,则百分比得分为55%;成功46次,占58%。这里没有不确定性。但是,当我们处理623个中的237个时,我们该怎么办?237和238的得分都是38%。通过分别写38.0%和38.2%来区分这些结果不是明智的吗?好吧,如果这样的精度很重要,我们可以简单地给出绝对值。绝对值总是准确的;百分比和分数只是近似值。准确百分比的目的可能是什么?我很欣赏百分比分数和分数比绝对值更适合进行比较。从百分比来看,我一眼就能看出237/623比165/465(分别为38%和35%)多。百分比很快,而且不准确,即使有额外的小数。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
European Science Editing
European Science Editing Social Sciences-Communication
CiteScore
1.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
17
审稿时长
12 weeks
期刊介绍: EASE"s journal, European Science Editing , publishes articles, reports meetings, announces new developments and forthcoming events, reviews books, software and online resources, and highlights publications of interest to members.
期刊最新文献
Introducing the EASE Interactive Checklist for Submitting Authors A journal veracity–diligence index Lists of predatory journals and publishers: a review for future refinement Article processing charges suppress the scholarship of doctoral students Bibliometric analysis of publications trends in Indonesian research institutions: A comparison of pre-integration (2015–2021) and post-integration (2022–2023) periods
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1