[jayd16]

The assumption is that they almost certainly did not have the sample size to justify two decimal places. If they want two decimals for aesthetics over properly honoring significant figures then it calls the scientific rigor into question.

[energy123]

But they say "26.08% increase (SE: 10.3%)", so they make it clear that there's a lot of uncertainty around that number.

They could have said "26% (rounded to 0 dp)" or something, but that conveys even less information about the amount of uncertainty than just saying what the standard error is.

[Delk]

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.