Cargando…

Missing the point: are journals using the ideal number of decimal places?

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 diff...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autor principal: Barnett, Adrian G
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: F1000 Research Limited 2018
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6073092/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30135727
http://dx.doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.14488.3
_version_ 1783344114555682816
author Barnett, Adrian G
author_facet Barnett, Adrian G
author_sort Barnett, Adrian G
collection PubMed
description 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.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6073092
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2018
publisher F1000 Research Limited
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-60730922018-08-21 Missing the point: are journals using the ideal number of decimal places? Barnett, Adrian G F1000Res Research Article 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. F1000 Research Limited 2018-08-10 /pmc/articles/PMC6073092/ /pubmed/30135727 http://dx.doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.14488.3 Text en Copyright: © 2018 Barnett AG http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Licence, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Research Article
Barnett, Adrian G
Missing the point: are journals using the ideal number of decimal places?
title Missing the point: are journals using the ideal number of decimal places?
title_full Missing the point: are journals using the ideal number of decimal places?
title_fullStr Missing the point: are journals using the ideal number of decimal places?
title_full_unstemmed Missing the point: are journals using the ideal number of decimal places?
title_short Missing the point: are journals using the ideal number of decimal places?
title_sort missing the point: are journals using the ideal number of decimal places?
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6073092/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30135727
http://dx.doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.14488.3
work_keys_str_mv AT barnettadriang missingthepointarejournalsusingtheidealnumberofdecimalplaces