Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35112074›Full record

ArticleForensic science international. Synergy2021

Reply to Response to Vacuous standards - Subversion of the OSAC standards-development process.

Geoffrey Stewart Morrison, Cedric Neumann, Patrick Henry Geoghegan, Gary Edmond, Tim Grant, R Brent Ostrum, Paul Roberts, Michael Saks, Denise Syndercombe Court, William C Thompson and 1 more

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Forensic science international. Synergy, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

11 authors.

Geoffrey Stewart MorrisonForensic Data Science Laboratory & Forensic Speech Science Laboratory, Computer Science Department & Aston Institute for Forensic Linguistics, Aston University, Birmingham, UK.
Cedric NeumannTwo N's Forensics Inc, Brookings, SD, USA.
Patrick Henry GeogheganDepartment of Biomedical Engineering, Aston University, Birmingham, UK.
Gary EdmondFaculty of Law and Justice, University of New South Wales, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
Tim GrantAston Institute for Forensic Linguistics, Aston University, Birmingham, UK.
R Brent OstrumForensic Document Examination Section, Science and Engineering Directorate, Canada Border Services Agency, Ottawa, ON, Canada.
Paul RobertsSchool of Law, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK.
Michael SaksSandra Day O'Connor College of Law, Department of Psychology, And Center for Law, Science & Innovation, Arizona State University, Phoenix, AZ, USA.
Denise Syndercombe CourtKing's Forensics, King's College London, London, UK.
William C ThompsonDepartments of Criminology and Psychology, and School of Law, University of California, Irvine, CA, USA.
Sandy ZabellDepartments of Mathematics and Statistics, Northwestern University, Evanston, IL, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This Letter to the Editor is a reply to Mohammed et al. (2021) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fsisyn.2021.100145, which in turn is a response to Morrison et al. (2020) "Vacuous standards - subversion of the OSAC standards-development process" https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fsisyn.2020.06.005.

Indexed as

Forensic scienceMethod validationQuality managementStandardValidation

Identifiers

PMID35112074
PMCPMC8790162

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.