ArticleForensic science international. Synergy2020
Forensic science needs registered reports.
Article in Forensic science international. Synergy, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Methodological support for forensic science in the USA and Ukraine: A comparative study.Forensic science international. Synergy · 2025Article
- A guide to measuring expert performance in forensic pattern matching.Behavior research methods · 2024Article
- Rethinking scientific communication in courts: A question of credibility.Forensic science international. Synergy · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The registered report (RR) format is rapidly being adopted by scientific researchers and journals. RRs flip the peer review process, with reviewers evaluating proposed methods, rather than the data and findings. Editors then accept or reject articles largely based on the pre-data collection review. Accordingly, RRs reduce the incentive for researchers to exaggerate their findings, and they make any data-driven changes to the methods and analysis more conspicuous. They also reduce publication bias, ensuring studies with null or otherwise unfavorable results are published. RRs are being used in many fields to improve research practices and increase confidence in study findings. The authors suggest RRs ought to be the default way in which validation studies are conducted and reported in the forensic sciences. They produce more reliable findings, advance criminal justice values, and will lead to several efficiencies in the research process.
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.