Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40727881›Full record

ReviewForensic science international. Synergy2025

Transparent reporting in forensic Science: Exploring its meaning and challenges.

Kristy A Martire

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review 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 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Current state: Assessing DNA results considering transfer.Forensic science international. Synergy · 2026
    Review
  2. 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

1 author.

Kristy A MartireSchool of Psychology, The University of New South Wales Sydney, NSW, 2052, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The forensic and scientific communities widely endorse transparency as a core principle and fundamental obligation of forensic science reporting. Yet the definition of transparency - ironically - remains opaque. This ambiguity impacts scientist's ability to fulfill their obligations when reporting forensic findings to justice systems as the primary consumer. Applying Elliott's 2022 taxonomy of transparency clarifies the issue, revealing that transparency is central to achieving Reliability, Assessment, Justice, Accountability and Innovation goals. It involves disclosing information about the scientists' Authority, Compliance, Basis, Justification, Validity, Disagreements, and Context, and shows that the audiences for these disclosures includes not only primary consumers, but also a range of agents, actors, and stakeholders. This complexity creates a multidimensional challenge for scientists and forensic science service providers, requiring a careful balance between competing demands. Templates can mitigate some of these challenges, but must be coupled with ongoing collaboration among forensic scientists, legal stakeholders, and institutional bodies to ensure that reporting practices evolve in line with professional obligations, scientific rigor and the realities of forensic practice.

Identifiers

PMID40727881
PMCPMC12301839

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.