CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 35Text Readability and SimplificationAcademic Writing and PublishingLegal processes and jurisprudence

Forensic scientists’ conclusions: How readable are they for non-scientist report-users?

Open access
Howes, Loene M., Kirkbride, K. Paul, Kelty, Sally F., Julian, Roberta, Kemp, Nenagh·2013·Forensic Science International
DOI 10.1016/j.forsciint.2013.04.026
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Scientists have an ethical responsibility to assist non-scientists to understand their findings and expert opinions before they are used as decision-aids within the criminal justice system. The communication of scientific expert opinion to non-scientist audiences (e.g., police, lawyers, and judges) through expert reports is an important but under-researched issue. Readability statistics were used to assess 111 conclusions from a proficiency test in forensic glass analysis. The conclusions were written using an average of 23 words per sentence, and approximately half of the conclusions were expressed using the active voice. At an average Flesch-Kincaid Grade level of university undergraduate (Grade 13), and Flesch Reading Ease score of difficult (42), the conclusions were written at a level suitable for people with some tertiary education in science, suggesting that the intended non-scientist readers would find them difficult to read. To further analyse the readability of conclusions, descriptive features of text were used: text structure; sentence structure; vocabulary; elaboration; and coherence and unity. Descriptive analysis supported the finding that texts were written at a level difficult for non-scientists to read. Specific aspects of conclusions that may pose difficulties for non-scientists were located. Suggestions are included to assist scientists to write conclusions with increased readability for non-scientist readers, while retaining scientific integrity. In the next stage of research, the readability of expert reports in their entirety is to be explored.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.forsciint.2013.04.026

Cites

47 of 47 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Writing a forensic report as if for other scientists with the same background results in a report that is not completely understandable by nonscientists, especially regarding the science upon which the conclusion is based.

    “What has become clear is that writing a report as if it is for other scientists who have the same background understanding of the subject, results in a forensic report which is not completely understandable by nonscientists, especially when it comes to communicating the science upon which the conclusion is based (Howes, 2017;Howes et al., 2013).”

    From Communication, forensic science, and the law (2021) · cites this paper as Howes et al., 2013

  • Misunderstandings of uncertainty communication can and have had negative impacts on court proceedings.

    “as misunderstandings can and have had negative impacts on court proceedings (Howes et al., 2013;Martire, 2018;Martire et al., 2013;Martire et al., 2014;McQuiston-Surrett & Saks, 2007, 2009;Saks & Koehler, 2008).”

    From Communication, forensic science, and the law (2021) · cites this paper as Howes et al., 2013

  • Issues in how uncertainty is communicated and how it can be misunderstood by others in the criminal justice system and by the jury form a major part of research into communication of forensic science.

    “Issues in the way in which uncertainty is communicated and how this can be misunderstood by others in the criminal justice system and by the jury as the triers of fact form a major part of the research into communication of forensic science”

    From Communication, forensic science, and the law (2021) · cites this paper as Howes et al., 2013

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

4 of the 51 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Howes, L. M., Kirkbride, K. P., Kelty, S. F., Julian, R., & Kemp, N.
Affiliations
  • University of Tasmania (AU)
  • Flinders University (AU)
ORCID
Venue
Forensic Science International
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2013-09
Volume
231
Issue
1-3
Pages
102-112
ISSN
0379-0738 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1016/j.forsciint.2013.04.026
OpenAlex
W2120132295
Cited by
34
References
51
Citations by year
2025: 3 · 2024: 2 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 1 · 2017: 1 · 2016: 3 · 2015: 4 · 2014: 7
FWCI
5.16
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • Forensic Science International (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • eCite Digital Repository (University of Tasmania) (submittedVersion)
  • Figshare (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Text Readability and Simplification
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › History and Philosophy of Science › Academic Writing and Publishing
  • Social Sciences › Law › Legal processes and jurisprudence
Keywords
readability, forensic expert reports, science communication, forensic glass analysis, scientific writing, Flesch-Kincaid grade, Flesch Reading Ease, text structure, sentence structure, vocabulary, scientific integrity, criminal justice decision-making
MeSH terms
Educational Status, Humans, Writing, Comprehension, Forensic Sciences, Research Report

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review