![]() ![]() Of course, tables can be made clearer by reducing unnecessary numbers, and so allowing the reader to easily comprehend the key information. Numbers in the results section and tables can be presented with more detail, because they can be an accurate record of the data (e.g., for meta-analysis) and the reader is usually not expected to read every number in a table, especially a large table. The abstract and discussion are a summary of the findings, and here numbers can be rounded to make sentences easier to read. The large sample size in this example means that potentially useful information is lost by rounding the percent to an integer.Īuthors must strike a balance between presenting numbers with too little or too much detail. To use these results in a meta-analysis it would be better to know the actual number of applicants. For example, a review of the gender bias in funding peer review reported in a results table that 20% of applicants were female in a study of 41,727 applicationsĥ, so from these results we only know that the number of female applicants was somewhere between 8,137 and 8,554, a range of 417. An often cited bad example are journal impact factors, which are reported to three decimal places when one or no decimal places would be enough to show the differences between journalsĪuthors may also over-simplify numbers by rounding and losing important information. #EASY CSV EDITOR CHANGE DECIMAL PLACES SOFTWARE#Statistical software packages show results to many decimal places, but this level of precision may be spurious, and authors may overcrowd a paper with numbers if they copy the results from software without considering what level of precision is appropriate. Poorly presented numbers can decrease readability and can distort or even hide important information. Papers have also become less readable over time, with an increase in the use of scientific jargon In 2010 there were an estimated 75 trials and 11 systematic reviews published per day in the field of health and medicineġ, and by 2012 the number of systematic reviews had more than doubled to 26 per dayĢ. However, the ever-increasing number of papers is placing greater demands on scientists’ time. Scientists read papers in order to keep up with the latest developments in their field and improve their research. “Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler.” Albert Einstein (paraphrased). ![]() It should be possible to provide automated feedback to authors on which numbers could be better presented. Using the recommended number of decimal places would make papers easier to read and reduce the burden on readers, and potentially improve comprehension. There was a wide variation in presentation between journals, with the range of ideal presentation from a low of 53% (Ĭonclusions: Many percents did not adhere to the guidelines on using decimal places. The most common issue was using too many decimal places (33%), rather than too few (12%). Only 55% of the percents were presented according to the guidelines. Results: The sample had over 43,000 percents from around 9,500 abstracts. 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. Percents were excluded if they referred to a statistical interval, typically a 95% confidence interval. Methods: Percents were extracted from the abstracts of research articles published in 2017 in 23 selected journals. There are guidelines for the ideal number of decimal places, and in this paper I examine how often percents meet these guidelines. 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. Background: The scientific literature is growing in volume and reducing in readability. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |