ArticleForensic science international. Synergy2025
Methodological support for forensic science in the USA and Ukraine: A comparative study.
Article in Forensic science international. Synergy, 2025. 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.
- Transformation of public administration in the sphere of forensic science activity in Ukraine under martial law.Forensic science international. Synergy · 2026Article
- Interpol review of forensic science management, 2022-2025.Forensic science international. Synergy · 2026Review
- Digitalisation of forensic expert activity in Ukraine: Organisational and legal framework.Forensic science international. Synergy · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The significant potential of proper methodological support in solving key tasks of forensic expert activity is noted. The procedure for certification and state registration of forensic examination methods introduced in Ukraine is analyzed. The composition and procedure for the activities of the advisory bodies of the Ministry of Justice of Ukraine which determine the relevance and priority of forensic examination research are investigated. The author identifies the areas of concern in the methodological support of forensic institutions, the addressing of which relates to the activities of the State in terms of legal support of forensics at the legislative and departmental regulatory levels. The requirements to the registration of research results by grantees of the US National Institute of Justice are clarified. The article compares research costs, access to scientific results, and promising research topics in the field of forensic science in the United States and Ukraine. Certain ways of solving the identified problems related to the methodological support of forensic expert activity were proposed, taking into account the specifics of the legal system of Ukraine and the experience of the National Institute of Justice in the United States. The author emphasizes the need for further development and strengthening of cooperation between forensic institutions and international organizations in the field of standardization.
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.