Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40624742›Full record

ArticleJournal of forensic sciences2025

Quality issue management and disclosure in forensic science: A survey of practice and perceptions.

Anna L Heavey, Max M Houck, Gavin R Turbett, Simon W Lewis

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of forensic sciences, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing 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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Interpol review of forensic science management, 2022-2025.Forensic science international. Synergy · 2026
    Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
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

4 authors.

Anna L HeaveySchool of Molecular and Life Sciences, Curtin University, Bentley, Western Australia, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5109-1203
Max M HouckGlobal Forensic and Justice Center, Florida International University, Largo, Florida, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4505-4331
Gavin R TurbettForensic Biology Department, PathWest Laboratory Medicine WA, Nedlands, Western Australia, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6522-6498
Simon W LewisSchool of Molecular and Life Sciences, Curtin University, Bentley, Western Australia, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2049-1586

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Addressing calls for transparency regarding errors and limitations in forensic processes is an ongoing concern for the forensic science service provider community and the stakeholders it serves worldwide. Foundational to this goal is developing a consistent approach to the identification of issues that have, or could have, an impact on the quality and reliability of forensic results. A standardized approach to the classification of quality issues detected within forensic agency management systems may be the strategic key to supporting consistent identification and disclosure, along with enhancing a positive quality culture throughout forensic service providers and building understanding of "error" in forensic science with end users of forensic information. A survey of international forensic science service providers was conducted to gain deeper insights into current systems of issue identification, classification, management, and disclosure along with perceptions on quality issues, their use and communication by forensic agency staff. The survey results demonstrate that development of a standardized approach would be of significant value to the forensic science community and its stakeholders, with potential benefit not only to improved communication and use of quality issue data but also in advancing a positive culture of quality and credibility in forensic service provision to support justice outcomes.

Indexed as

DisclosureForensic SciencesHumansSurveys and QuestionnairesaccreditationerrorISO/IEC 17025qualityquality issuesquality managementstandards

Identifiers

PMID40624742
PMCPMC12424106

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.