Leslie H. Nicoll, PhD, MBA, RN, FAAN
Writer’s Camp Director
Abstract
False precision misleads readers by presenting numbers with inconsistent or unnecessary decimal places, suggesting greater accuracy than exists. This can create confusion about data analysis and distract from the main narrative. Maintaining consistent precision, usually with whole numbers for percentages, enhances clarity and effective communication.
Wordcraft at Camp offers bite-size lessons on language, clarity, and scholarly style from the counselors at Writer’s Camp.
Quick Definition
False precision occurs when numbers are reported with unnecessary or inconsistent decimal places, creating the illusion of accuracy without adding meaning.
In Practice
Authors sometimes report results like this: 8%, 8.2%, and 8.25%. Or “The correlation between study hours and exam scores was… r = .4; or r = .42; or r = .4237.”
When values drawn from the same dataset or analytic method are presented with different numbers of decimal places, they imply different levels of measurement precision or certainty—even when none exist. To a careful reader, this signals inconsistency rather than rigor.
Even when authors believe they are being precise, inconsistent decimal places can distract readers or raise questions about how the data were analyzed. Were these values rounded differently? Do they come from separate analyses? Or is the inconsistency simply accidental? When readers pause to wonder, the writing has lost momentum.
In most narrative contexts, whole-number percentages convey findings clearly. Additional decimal places rarely change interpretation and may overstate the accuracy of the data. For the Pearson product moment correlation (r) shown above, .42 is the best presentation. Two decimal places communicate the strength clearly without false precision.
Common Pitfalls
- Mixing levels of numeric precision within the same paragraph, table, or figure.
- Adding decimal places “just in case” or to appear more scientific.
- Relying on software defaults without editorial review.
- Reporting more precision than the data can reasonably support.
- Assuming readers equate more digits with better science.
Rule of Thumb
Choose a single level of precision and use it consistently. For percentages in narrative text, whole numbers are usually sufficient unless decimals meaningfully affect interpretation. If decimal places are necessary, apply the same level of precision consistently across all related values.
it’s about matching numbers to meaning.
Counselor’s Tip
Precision is a communication decision, not a technical flourish. Extra decimal places often signal anxiety, not rigor. When in doubt, choose clarity and consistency over unnecessary detail.
Author: Leslie H. Nicoll
Reviewed and Edited by: Jenny Chicca
Copyright © 2026 Writer’s Camp and Leslie H. Nicoll. CC-BY-ND 4.0
Citation: Nicoll LH. Wordcraft at Camp: False Precision. The Writer’s Camp Journal, 2(1):13 doi:10.5281/zenodo.18664075
I was just reading an email bulletin and came across this paragraph:
A survey found that over 70% of 618 health care professionals use AI tools, primarily for documentation, research synthesis and clinical decision support. While 73.3% view AI positively, trust remains a concern, with only 65.2% expressing moderate to great trust in AI for professional use. Clinicians prioritize clinical accuracy, data privacy and workflow integration in AI tools, and 90% said clinicians should be involved in AI tool development.
There are four percentages in this paragraph: 2 with decimal points, 2 without. It would have been very easy to fix 73% and 65%–they didn’t even need to round up the numbers! Why wasn’t this edited? It drives me bananas! — Leslie