ReviewForensic science international. Synergy2024
Rethinking scientific communication in courts: A question of credibility.
Review in Forensic science international. Synergy, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 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
11 citing papers in PubMed.
- Investigating interdisciplinary learning outcomes in a forensic science programme.Forensic science international. Synergy · 2026Article
- The role of forensic evidence in Indonesia's criminal justice.Forensic science international. Synergy · 2026Article
- Enhancing quality assurance in forensic medicolegal opinions: A standardized training and auditing framework for Arab countries.Forensic science international. Synergy · 2026Article
- Abusive head trauma: a consensus statement on a shared workflow model within the Balkan network for quality improvement in forensic medicine.Frontiers in pediatrics · 2026Article
- The development of Forensic Science in the criminal justice system of England and Wales (2000-2024): A systematic review.Forensic science international. Synergy · 2025Article
- Evaluating bias in forensic evidence: From expert analysis to AI-based decision tools.Forensic science international. Synergy · 2025Article
- Quality issue management and disclosure in forensic science: A survey of practice and perceptions.Journal of forensic sciences · 2025Article
- Digitalisation of forensic expert activity in Ukraine: Organisational and legal framework.Forensic science international. Synergy · 2025Article
- Methodological support for forensic science in the USA and Ukraine: A comparative study.Forensic science international. Synergy · 2025Article
- Transparency and diversity to advance legal-scientific communication.Forensic science international. Synergy · 2024Article
- A plan for systematic reviews for high-need areas in forensic science.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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The high value placed on forensic information in the criminal justice process is demonstrated by the fallout resulting when questions are raised as to the validity of methods used, deficiencies in the understanding of the limitations of results, or uncertainties around the professional expertise or ethical practices of the provider of the information. To effectively act as the "speaker" for the scientific evidence in court, forensic science needs to have credibility. The workshop "Rethinking scientific communication in courts" held at the Australian National University College of Law in November 2023 explored the subject of science communication in the legal context through the lens of philosophy, law, forensic service provision and meta-science, demonstrating the unique challenges placed on the field of forensic science as a scientific profession confined and defined within a non-scientific system. Stemming from the discussions at the workshop, this paper examines the notion of credibility in science, how forensic science aligns with the hallmarks of a credible scientific community and the influence this has on our understandings of scientific communication in courts.
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.