ArticleForensic science international. Synergy2022
Challenges to reasoning in forensic science decisions.
Article in Forensic science international. Synergy, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 12 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
12 citing papers in PubMed.
- Interpol review of forensic science management, 2022-2025.Forensic science international. Synergy · 2026Review
- Evaluating bias in forensic evidence: From expert analysis to AI-based decision tools.Forensic science international. Synergy · 2025Article
- Cognitive Bias Affects Perception and Decision-Making in Simulated Facial Recognition Searches.Behavioral sciences (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- A practical approach to mitigating cognitive bias effects in forensic casework.Forensic science international. Synergy · 2025Article
- Article
- Learning Clinical Reasoning in Forensic Medicine: A Scoping Review.Medical science educator · 2024Article
- Unpacking workplace stress and forensic expert decision-making: From theory to practice.Forensic science international. Synergy · 2024Review
- Interpol review of fingermarks and other body impressions 2019 - 2022).Forensic science international. Synergy · 2023Review
- Recent advances in forensic biology and forensic DNA typing: INTERPOL review 2019-2022.Forensic science international. Synergy · 2023Article
- Toward better AFIS practice and process in the forensic fingerprint environment.Forensic science international. Synergy · 2023Article
- Describing communication during a forensic investigation using the Pebbles on a Scale metaphor.Forensic science international. Synergy · 2022Article
- Advancing a paradigm shift in evaluation of forensic evidence: The rise of forensic data science.Forensic science international. Synergy · 2022Review
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The success of forensic science depends heavily on human reasoning abilities. Although we typically navigate our lives well using those abilities, decades of psychological science research shows that human reasoning is not always rational. In addition, forensic science often demands that its practitioners reason in non-natural ways. This article addresses how characteristics of human reasoning (either specific to an individual or in general) and characteristics of situations (either specific to a case or in general in a lab) can contribute to errors before, during, or after forensic analyses. In feature comparison judgments, such as fingerprints or firearms, a main challenge is to avoid biases from extraneous knowledge or arising from the comparison method itself. In causal and process judgments, for example fire scenes or pathology, a main challenge is to keep multiple potential hypotheses open as the investigation continues. Considering the contributions to forensic science judgments by persons, situations, and their interaction, reveals ways to develop procedures to decrease errors and improve accuracy.
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.