The international development of forensic science standards — A review
Open accessAbstract
Standards establish specifications and procedures designed to ensure products, services and systems are safe, reliable and consistently perform as intended. Standards can be used in the accreditation of forensic laboratories or facilities and in the certification of products and services. In recent years there have been various international activities aiming at developing forensic science standards and guidelines. The most significant initiative currently underway within the global forensic community is the development of International Organization for Standardization (ISO) standards. This paper reviews the main bodies working on standards for forensic science, the processes used and the implications for accreditation. This paper specifically discusses the work of ISO Technical Committee TC272, the future TC272 work program for the development of forensic science standards and associated timelines. Also discussed, are the lessons learnt to date in navigating the complex environment of multi-country stakeholder deliberations in standards development.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
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?
The ongoing commitment from the global forensic community to improving standards of quality, validity, and professionalism is evident throughout the literature and initiatives emerging from within the industry, along with academia and professional bodies.
“The ongoing commitment from the global forensic community to improving standards of quality, validity, and professionalism is evident throughout the literature and initiatives emerging from within the industry, along with academia and professional bodies [24, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40].”
From Quality issue management and disclosure in forensic science: A survey of practice and perceptions (2025) · cites this paper as [38]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Cites
International Organization for Standardization (ISO)
Nahler, G. (2009) · Dictionary of Pharmaceutical Medicine · doi:10.1007/978-3-211-89836-9_723 · Cited by 3,673 · see citing works
Strengthening Forensic Science in the United States: A Path Forward
Council, N. R. (2009) · CrimRxiv · doi:10.21428/cb6ab371.b2d683d2 · Cited by 1,461 · see citing works
Strengthening forensic science in the United States : a path forward
Policy, L. (2009) · National Academies Press eBooks · Cited by 961 · see citing works
Quality Assurance Standards for Forensic DNA Testing Laboratories
(2001) · CRC Press eBooks · doi:10.1201/9781420058505.axg · Cited by 117 · see citing works
U.S. initiatives to strengthen forensic science & international standards in forensic DNA
Butler, J. M. (2015) · Forensic Science International Genetics · doi:10.1016/j.fsigen.2015.06.008 · Cited by 60 · see citing works
The Development of a Core Forensic Standards Framework for Australia
Robertson, J. A., Kent, K., & Wilson-Wilde, L. (2013) · Forensic Science Policy & Management An International Journal · doi:10.1080/19409044.2013.858797 · Cited by 27 · see citing works
Self-citationThe future of forensic science standards
Wilson-Wilde, L., Brandi, J., & Gutowski, S. (2011) · Forensic science international. Genetics supplement series · doi:10.1016/j.fsigss.2011.09.029 · Cited by 12 · see citing works
Self-citationButler, J. M. (2016) · Australian Journal of Forensic Sciences · doi:10.1080/00450618.2016.1243153 · Cited by 12 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Research works printed but not linked: 1
- J. Brandi, L. Wilson-Wilde, Standard methods, 2nd ed., in: J.A. Siegel, P.J. Saukko (Eds.), Encyclopaedia of Forensic Sciences, vol. 3, Academic Press, Waltham, MA, 2013, pp. 522-527.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Mind the gap: The challenges of sustainable forensic science service provision
Bouzin, J. T., Lópes, T., Heavey, A. L., Parrish, J., Sauzier, G., & Lewis, S. W. (2023) · Forensic Science International: Synergy · doi:10.1016/j.fsisyn.2023.100318 · Cited by 27 · see citing works
Toward a common language for quality issues in forensic science
Heavey, A. L., Turbett, G. R., Houck, M. M., & Lewis, S. W. (2022) · WIREs Forensic Science · doi:10.1002/wfs2.1452 · Cited by 16 · see citing works
Quality issue management and disclosure in forensic science: A survey of practice and perceptions
Heavey, A. L., Houck, M. M., Turbett, G. R., & Lewis, S. W. (2025) · Journal of Forensic Sciences · doi:10.1111/1556-4029.70121 · Cited by 10 · see citing works
- Authors
- Wilson-Wilde, L.
- Corresponding author
- Wilson-Wilde, Linzi
- ORCID
- Wilson-Wilde, Linzi
- Venue
- Forensic Science International
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2018-07
- Volume
- 288
- Pages
- 1-9
- ISSN
- 0379-0738 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2800595610
- Cited by
- 103
- References
- 8
- Citations by year
- 2026: 12 · 2025: 17 · 2024: 19 · 2023: 9 · 2022: 19 · 2021: 11 · 2020: 11 · 2019: 5
- FWCI
- 2.10
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Forensic Science International (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Strategy and Management › Quality and Management Systems
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Scientific Measurement and Uncertainty Evaluation
- Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Strategy and Management › Management Systems and Quality Improvement
- Keywords
- forensic science standards, international standardization, forensic laboratory accreditation, standard development process, stakeholder deliberation
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
