ArticlePloS one2019
Fraud and misrepresentation in retail forest products exceeds U.S. forensic wood science capacity.
Article in PloS one, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Harnessing Genomic Information for Identifying the Geographic Origin of Five North American Tree Species in Trade.Evolutionary applications · 2026Article
- Article
- How to discriminate wood of CITES-listed tree species from their look-alikes: using an attention mechanism with the ResNet model on an enhanced macroscopic image dataset.Frontiers in plant science · 2024Article
- A DNA barcode reference library for CITES listed MalagasyEcology and evolution · 2023Article
- Wood identification ofFrontiers in plant science · 2023Article
- Organellar microcapture to extract nuclear and plastid DNA from recalcitrant wood specimens and trace evidence.Plant methods · 2022Article
- Towards Sustainable North American Wood Product Value Chains, Part I: Computer Vision Identification of Diffuse Porous Hardwoods.Frontiers in plant science · 2021Article
- The XyloTron: Flexible, Open-Source, Image-Based Macroscopic Field Identification of Wood Products.Frontiers in plant science · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Fraud and misrepresentation in forest products supply chains is often associated with illegal logging, but the extent of fraud in the U.S. forest products market, and the availability of forensic expertise to detect it, is unknown. We used forensic wood anatomy to test 183 specimens from 73 consumer products acquired from major U.S. retailers, surveyed U.S. experts regarding their forensic wood anatomy capacity, and conducted a proficiency-testing program of those experts. 62% of tested products (45 of 73) had one or more type of fraudulent or misrepresented claim. Survey respondents reported a total capacity of 830 wood specimens per year, and participants' identification accuracy ranged from 6% to 92%. Given the extent of fraud and misrepresentation, U.S. wood forensic wood anatomy capacity does not scale with the need for such expertise. We call for increased training in forensic wood anatomy and its broader application in forest products supply chains to eliminate fraud and combat illegal logging.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.