Post History
+1 user37826, that is my answer. I understand you are showing the +/- in the superscript and subscript, respectively, but I don't like this format at all; for one it doesn't give the confidence lev...
Answer
#4: Attribution notice removed
by
System
·
2019-12-19T22:13:45Z (almost 5 years ago)
Source: https://writers.stackexchange.com/a/44592 License name: CC BY-SA 3.0 License URL: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/
#3: Attribution notice added
by
System
·
2019-12-08T11:42:10Z (almost 5 years ago)
Source: https://writers.stackexchange.com/a/44592 License name: CC BY-SA 3.0 License URL: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/
#2: Initial revision
+1 user37826, that is my answer. I understand you are showing the +/- in the superscript and subscript, respectively, but I don't like this format at all; for one it doesn't give the confidence level being quoted. 90%? 95%? 99.9%? is that a 3-sigma or 5-sigma result? If I were your advisor I'd tell you to stop trying to save space or be "efficient" and spell it out, every time. > 79.5 error of [-2.0, +2.0] at 95% confidence. If you want to put those in a table, fine, but do one parameter per line. Stop trying to cram your results into a tiny space; the first rule of academic writing is **clarity** , and you are creating unnecessary confusion. And, as user37826 says, follow the style guide, or lacking that, previous publications in a respected journal. The presentation there is likely something readers are accustomed to seeing, and therefore achieve the goal of clarity.
#1: Imported from external source
by
System
·
2019-04-13T18:39:47Z (over 5 years ago)
Original score: 3