CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 6Publishing and Scholarly CommunicationAcademic Publishing and Open AccessLegal processes and jurisprudence

Retraction of a peer reviewed article suggests ongoing problems with Australian forensic science

Open access
Brook, Chris, Lynøe, Niels, Eriksson, Anders, Balding, David·2021·Forensic Science International: Synergy
DOI 10.1016/j.fsisyn.2021.100208PMC PMC8585618
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

We describe events arising from the case of Joby Rowe, convicted of the homicide of his three month old daughter, and explore what they illustrate about systemic problems in the forensic science community in Australia. A peer reviewed journal article that scrutinized the forensic evidence presented in the Rowe case was retracted by a forensic science journal for reasons unrelated to quality or accuracy, under pressure from forensic medical experts criticized in the article. Details of the retraction obtained through freedom of information mechanisms reveal improper pressure and subversion of publishing processes in order to avoid scrutiny. The retraction was supported by the editorial board and two Australian forensic science societies, which is indicative of serious deficiencies in the leadership of forensic science in Australia. We propose paths forward including blind peer review, publication of expert reports, and a criminal cases review authority, that would help stimulate a culture that encourages scrutiny, and relies on evidence-based rather than eminence-based knowledge.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.fsisyn.2021.100208This paper is marked retracted.

Cites

11 of 11 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • There is often denial and pushback by the justice and legal systems when the issue of bias is raised.

    “Nevertheless, there is often denial and pushback by the justice and legal systems when the issue of bias is raised (e.g., Brook et al., 2021; Peat, 2021).”

    From Biased and biasing: the hidden bias cascade and bias snowball effects (2025) · cites this paper as Brook et al., 2021

    The retraction > Legal threats describes a police officer trying to prevent publication of criticism, and the Conclusions describe suppression of scrutiny by the Australian forensic science community. The paper also discusses contextual bias in The retraction > Article retraction. These passages support an example of pushback, but not the broader claim that justice and legal systems often deny or resist concerns specifically when bias is raised. (LLM, conf=0.81)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Bias snowball occurs frequently in the justice and legal systems because elements that should be independent actually work together.

    “Bias snowball occurs frequently in the justice and legal systems because elements that should be independent actually work together (e.g., Brook et al., 2021).”

    From Biased and biasing: the hidden bias cascade and bias snowball effects (2025) · cites this paper as Brook et al., 2021

    The retraction > Article retraction (page unavailable) describes interactions between forensic experts, police and prosecutors that need to be managed to preserve independence, and links such interactions to contextual bias. The paper does not establish that a bias snowball occurs frequently across justice and legal systems, or that collaboration between supposedly independent elements causes that specific phenomenon. (LLM, conf=0.82)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

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

1 retracted

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 9

  1. [1]Hoyningen-Huene P. The Heart of science: systematicity in competing knowledges-Wissen im widerstreit. Berlin, boston: de gruyter 10.1515/9783110659658-005 2020 · DOI
  2. [2]“Triad only” cases make up around 1/3 of AHT cases, see Lynøe N. Eriksson A. Is focusing on the triad really irrelevant and of no practical use? Acta Paediatr. 107 10 2018 1675 1676 29888420
  3. [5]Email from the editor of the Australian Journal of Forensic Science (AJFS) to the Journal Portfolios Manager of Taylor and Francis (T&F, the publisher) dated 3 March 2020. Document attained through Freedom Of Information (FOI).
  4. [6]As Detailed in an Email from the Editor of the AJFS to the Journal Portfolios Manager Dated 1 August 2019 Document attained through FOI
  5. [11]Email from the Editor of the AJFS to the Journal Portfolios Manager 1 August 2019 Document attained under FOI. Confirmed also in email from Franklin to the experts
  6. [22]Email from Journal Portfolios Manager, T&F to the Editor of the AJFS on 2 August. Documents attained under FOI.
  7. [23]Email from Journal Portfolios Manager, T&F to the Editor of the AJFS on 8 August. Documents attained under FOI.
  8. [24]Email from the Editor of the AJFS to the Journal Portfolios Manager on 19 Dec 2019 Documents attained under FOI
  9. [31]Press release, NACDL, FBI testimony on microscopic hair analysis contained errors in at least 90 percent of cases in ongoing review: 26 of 28 FBI analysts provided testimony or reports with errors (april 20, 2015), available at http://www.na cdl.org/NewsReleases.aspx?id=37023.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Brook, C., Lynøe, N., Eriksson, A., & Balding, D.
Affiliations
  • Universidad de La Laguna (ES)
  • Umeå University (SE)
  • The University of Melbourne (AU)
Corresponding author
Brook, Chris
ORCID
Venue
Forensic Science International: Synergy
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2021
Volume
3
Pages
100208
ISSN
2589-871X (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1016/j.fsisyn.2021.100208
PMC
PMC8585618
OpenAlex
W3209836673
Cited by
6
References
11
Citations by year
2025: 3 · 2024: 1 · 2022: 2
Type
retraction
Language
en
Status
Retracted
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Forensic Science International Synergy (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • UCL Discovery (University College London) (acceptedVersion)
  • KTH Publication Database DiVA (KTH Royal Institute of Technology) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • Minerva Access (University of Melbourne) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › History and Philosophy of Science › Publishing and Scholarly Communication
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Information Systems and Management › Academic Publishing and Open Access
  • Social Sciences › Law › Legal processes and jurisprudence
Keywords
peer review, forensic evidence, freedom of information, blind peer review, expert reports, evidence-based knowledge

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