They could still have gone for one decimal. Or possibly even none, considering the magnitude of the SE, but I get that they might not want to say "SE: 10%".
The second decimal point doesn't essentially add any information because the data can't provide information at that precision. It's noise but being included in the summary result makes it implicitly look like information. Which is exactly why including it seems a bit questionable.
That's not the major issue with the study, though, it's just one of the things that caught my eye originally.
The second decimal point doesn't essentially add any information because the data can't provide information at that precision. It's noise but being included in the summary result makes it implicitly look like information. Which is exactly why including it seems a bit questionable.
That's not the major issue with the study, though, it's just one of the things that caught my eye originally.