ReviewRoyal Society open science2022
Registered reports in forensic science.
Review in Royal Society open science, 2022. 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.
- A call for open science in forensics.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2024Article
- Rethinking scientific communication in courts: A question of credibility.Forensic science international. Synergy · 2024Review
- Exploring the quantity and type of evidence collected during criminal investigations in South Korea.Forensic science international. Synergy · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Research assessing the validity and reliability of many forensic science disciplines has been published; however, the quality of this research varies depending on the methodologies employed. This was a major point of contention with the United States' President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology, who recognized the existing literature but found the majority lacking because of methodological issues. Questionable scientific methodologies have undermined the forensic science community's ability to defend the scientific foundations and examination protocols used to examine evidence in criminal cases. Such scientific failures have significant legal implications. Registered reports, which strengthen the quality of scientific research and reliability of laboratory protocols, can provide transparency, validity and a stronger scientific foundation for forensic science.
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.