ArticleJournal of forensic sciences2026
From bias awareness to governance control: Regulating human factors across the forensic science evidence lifecycle.
Article in Journal of forensic sciences, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
Cognitive bias is widely recognized as a persistent source of error in forensic science, yet mitigation efforts continue to emphasize examiner awareness, ethical vigilance, and training-based interventions. Empirical evidence from cognitive science demonstrates that such approaches are insufficient to reliably control bias under real-world operational conditions. This paper applies a lifecycle-based governance analysis to forensic science practice, synthesizing empirical bias research with established models of bias cascade and bias snowball effects. Using the forensic science evidence lifecycle as an analytical framework, it identifies where contextual information, organizational pressures, and interdependent decisions allow bias to accumulate and persist across stages of forensic work. The analysis shows that procedural countermeasures alone-such as decision sequencing-are necessary but insufficient, particularly in high-risk decision environments. Effective bias mitigation instead requires governance mechanisms capable of regulating information flow, compartmentalization, independent review, reporting structure, and accountability across the full evidence lifecycle. By reframing cognitive bias as a governance obligation rather than an individual failing, this paper advances a practical, systems-based framework for improving forensic science reliability that complements existing accreditation and quality management structures.
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.