I just sent a report out where three independent values in a row happened to coincidentally be 87.3%. I seem to recall there’s some frequently used way of notating data to say “no, this really isn’t a mistake,” after repeated values or values that are very small or large. Could be a Latin phrase.
Thanks in advance.
You might be thinking of the Latin word sic which means roughly, “this was the way it’s written.” But I’ve only ever seen that used in the context of an author quoting passages of writing where there are mistakes, to show that the mistakes are an accurate transcription.
I’ve never seen a term to indicate “No, these data are correct. Trust me.”
You can use [sic] (from the Latin sīc, meaning “in this manner”) when quoting someone in order to indicate that a mistake was in the original source rather than a typo on the part of the author, as in
“he said, “They made there [sic] beds.””
I don’t know that I’ve ever seen it in exactly the sort of situation you describe, but I see no reason it wouldn’t be appropriate.
You could use “not a typo” if there is space. I was looking for proofreader marks, but the only thing close was “stet”, but that doesn’t mean what you want. Stet means “ignore my correction and use the original language”.
J.
“There is no Ethics lecture today because Professor Lawrence is il” (sic)
I remember an entry in the Guinness Book of Records, years ago, which I have to paraphrase: in the section on human longevity, it claimed that the China Morning Post on such-and-such a day announced that a Chin Ch’ung Chung had just died aged 239 (sic). Not as in “we know this was a typo but it’s what they said”, but “we acknowledge that this claim is absurd but it was made in all seriousness by the publication”.
I would read [sic] as the opposite of what the OP intends. Generally [sic] means there is an error – and the point is, there isn’t.
Silly idea, but if you expand to two decimal places, are they different? That could be enough to clue the reader in.
I’ve seen an exclamation point in parentheses (!) to serve the function the OP is looking for. As in “Yes, and my hat flew off, too.”
The meaning of (sic) is to show that there is an error, but the author is transcribing the error as it stood in the original.
In the UK there is a long tradition on a Saturday afternoon of the football scores being displayed on the bottom of the screen as the games finish. Unsurprising scores go un-annotated (2-1, 0-1 etc.)
But when the number is somewhat surprising then the word is added as well. i.e. Leeds Utd. 6(six), Milwall 0, just to show it isn’t a typo. Might be rather long winded for example though.
You might try “(lit.)”, for “literally”.
Yeah, (!) gets used for this. I’ve only seen it in informal contexts (and rarely in an itemized list) but, depending on the context it could work.
My other thought would be to use asterisks and have a single footnote saying something like, “Values are correct as written.”
An experimental psych paper I once read had a finding of a perfect 100% correlation (or something - I forget what it was exactly, but one of those statistical things that are ‘never’ right on the nose). They wrote this: “(Honest!)”.
You could always do what Waugh did when he calculated the height of Mt Everest at exactly 20,000 feet - he knew that everyone would assume that to be a rounded figure so he added 2 feet making it 20,002.
A check mark?
Sic does not always mean there is an error. To quote Fowler, it is used after a quotation or phrase to
In fact, you could argue that using sic (which is Latin for “so” or “thus”) means there is not an error: that you have quoted the source accurately (whether the source quotation is in error or just surprising) or that you mean what you say.
Yes, but “sic” often implies doubt. Use “(Honest!)” and it sends the message you want, and with a bit of self-deprecating humor:that is, the message that you recognize it is weird, and potentially suspicious, but that is just how the data, by a strange coincidence, happened to fall out. What you want to avoid is having people suspect that you faked your data, but were too dumb to do it convincingly. Thus you call attention to the oddness, and let your readers know that you recognize it, but that is what it was.
I think things like check marks or exclamation marks, on their own, will probably not be understood.
How could this be? People don’t spell when they talk.
Someone transcribing a conversation or interview, or someone writing dialog for a book or script made a word choice error. Someone else, copying that text, inserted the [sic].
I’d support what typoink said, just have a footnote marker on all three values, with the footnote stating that, yes, all three values really are 87.3%.
I would take “(sic)” to mean what you intend it to mean, in this context, whereas “[sic]” is more commonly used within quotes to indicate the word “sic” itself was not included in the original, but the author has added it to demonstrate that it is not a typo. But since it seems this meaning is not universally acknowledged even in this thread, a footnote is probably a better bet in your example.
Yeah, this seems like the best solution to me.
J.