Transparency and diversity to advance legal-scientific communication
Open accessAI snapshot
Written from the paper’s full text.
TL;DR
This opening editorial introduces a special issue on “Rethinking Scientific Communication in Courts,” arguing that transparency and disciplinary diversity are needed to improve how scientific knowledge is conveyed to legal users. It summarizes four articles on error, open forensic reporting, systematic reviews, and credibility.
Key findings
- The special issue arose from a November 2023 conference at the Australian National University and features four articles; two themes emerged: the strength of disciplinary diversity and the importance of transparency in producing and conveying scientific knowledge.
- Martire et al. convened ten webinars pairing university researchers with forensic practitioners and extracted seven lessons about error: error is subjective, multidimensional, unavoidable, cultural, educational, misunderstood, and transdisciplinary.
- Ballantyne et al. describe Victoria Police’s annexure program covering 52 services; the earlier Practice Note approach was “triggered on request” and produced only “a handful of cases over the 10 years since introduction.” A small survey found just over half of respondents said annexures helped them better explain their science to a lay audience, and about a quarter said they were receiving more questions about their evidence in court.
- Chin et al. call for systematic reviews in high-need forensic areas, noting there are no rigorous and transparent systematic reviews for courts to rely on in forensic science; Heavey and Houck emphasize credibility and endorse robust, transparent systems and error detection.
Methods
- This is an opening editorial/commentary, not a primary research study; it synthesizes and contextualizes the four articles in the special issue.
- It describes the included contributions: Martire et al.’s ten webinars and seven lessons; Ballantyne et al.’s annexure program and small practitioner survey; Chin et al.’s proposal for systematic reviews; and Heavey and Houck’s credibility-focused commentary.
- No new data collection or formal analysis is reported for the editorial itself.
Limitations
- The paper states that a difficulty going forward will be finding resources to update the 52 annexures as knowledge and methods change, and it describes Ballantyne et al.’s survey as “small.”
- Evident from the text: as an editorial, it summarizes other articles rather than presenting original empirical methods or a systematic review, so its claims depend on the included papers.
Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
0 of 12 cited sources checked · 0 supported · 0 flagged
- Premisecitation§ Transparency and diversity to advance legal-scientific communication
Intellectual diversity strengthens knowledge generation processes, including by allowing for the interrogation of assumptions that may otherwise slip through unnoticed and produce error.
“As the philosopher of science Naomi Orsekes has observed, this kind of intellectual diversity strengthens knowledge generation processes, including by allowing for the interrogation of assumptions that may otherwise slip through unnoticed and produce error.”
- Also stated in: § Transparency and diversity to advance legal-scientific communication · plain
“In diversity there is epistemic strength [5].”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites [5] Oreskes, 2019
Not checked in the free run.
- Also stated in: § Transparency and diversity to advance legal-scientific communication · plain
- Premisecitation
Informal literature reviews produced by expert witnesses have historically been incomplete and biased towards demonstrating that the forensic practice is error free.
“For instance, the informal literature reviews produced by expert witnesses – as Ballantyne et al. note – have historically been incomplete and biased towards demonstrating the forensic practice is error free.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites [7] Ballantyne, 2024, A transparent approach: openness in forensic science reporting, Forensic Sci. Int.: Synergy
Not checked in the free run.
- Rests on an assumption: Much of this research is of uneven quality and there is often a lack of transparency in the research, which is necessary for the accurate assessment of its reliability.
- Premisecitation
Requests for disclosure of Practice Note information came in only a handful of cases over the 10 years since introduction, despite regular promotion.
“Surprisingly, requests for disclosure of this information came in only ‘a handful of cases over the 10 years since introduction – despite regular promotion of the value of the Practice Note and the type of material that would be provided to legal stakeholders including both prosecution and defence’ [7].”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites [7] Ballantyne, 2024, A transparent approach: openness in forensic science reporting, Forensic Sci. Int.: Synergy
Not checked in the free run.
- Premisecitation
There are no rigorous and transparent systematic reviews for courts to rely on in forensic science.
“Surprisingly, as the authors lay out, there are no rigorous and transparent systematic reviews for courts to rely on in forensic science [9].”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites [9] Chin, 2024, A plan for systematic reviews for high-need areas in forensic science, Forensic Sci. Int.: Synergy
Not checked in the free run.
- Rests on an assumption: Much of this research is of uneven quality and there is often a lack of transparency in the research, which is necessary for the accurate assessment of its reliability.
- Premisecitation
About a quarter of respondents said they were now receiving more questions about their evidence in court.
“There is also some indication that the annexures are promoting more critical scrutiny of forensic evidence, with about a quarter of respondents saying they were now receiving more questions about their evidence in court [7].”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites [7] Ballantyne, 2024, A transparent approach: openness in forensic science reporting, Forensic Sci. Int.: Synergy
Not checked in the free run.
- Classified as probably not a substantial claim. 9
- May combine two claims. 3
Classified as probably not a substantial claim.
Interpretationreasoning§ Transparency and diversity to advance legal-scientific communicationThe risks of wrongful convictions are real where the limitations of expert evidence are not appreciated, either by the courts or by the experts themselves.
“The hard lesson of mounting Royal and Special Commissions is that the risks of wrongful convictions are real where the limitations of expert evidence are not appreciated, either by the courts, or by the experts themselves.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimClassified as probably not a substantial claim.
PremisecitationForensic science is a high-risk, high-consequence field which brings with it an extremely low tolerance for error or learning by experimentation.
“Forensic science is a high-risk, high-consequence field which brings with it an extremely low tolerance for error or learning by experimentation [8].”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites [8] Heavey, 2024, Rethinking scientific communication in courts: a question of credibility, Forensic Sci. Int.: Synergy
Not checked in the free run.
Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).
PremisecitationWhen major decisions need to be made about medicine and education, those fields often turn to systematic reviews.
“Indeed, as the authors (Chin and colleagues) note, when major decisions need to be made about medicine and education, those fields often turn to systematic reviews [12].”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites [12] Chalmers, 2002, A brief history of research synthesis, Eval. Health Prof. source
Not checked in the free run.
Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).
PremisecitationOne difficulty going forward will be finding the resources to update the 52 annexures as additional knowledge is gained and methods are improved.
“As the authors observe, one difficulty going forward, will be in finding the resources to update the 52 annexures as ‘additional knowledge is gained through research and publications, and methods are continuously improved and updated’ [7].”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites [7] Ballantyne, 2024, A transparent approach: openness in forensic science reporting, Forensic Sci. Int.: Synergy
Not checked in the free run.
May combine two claims.
PremisecitationPrevious attempts to produce research reviews in forensic science have been hindered by a lack of disciplinary diversity and a lack of research synthesis expertise.
“The authors suggest that previous attempts to produce research reviews in forensic science have been hindered by a lack of disciplinary diversity and, in particular, a lack of research synthesis expertise (that is, experts trained by groups like Cochrane to produce systematic reviews).”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites [9] Chin, 2024, A plan for systematic reviews for high-need areas in forensic science, Forensic Sci. Int.: Synergy
Not checked in the free run.
Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable), S4 (based). May combine two claims.
InterpretationreasoningOpen dialogue embracing a diversity of views and backgrounds has proven essential towards advancing science, and its role in improving scientific communication in courts is no different.
“Open dialogue embracing a diversity of views and backgrounds has proven essential towards advancing science. Its role in improving scientific communication in courts is no different.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim- Rests on an assumption: There has been an exponential growth in scientific research in many forensic areas.
- Rests on an assumption: Much of this research is of uneven quality and there is often a lack of transparency in the research, which is necessary for the accurate assessment of its reliability.
Classified as probably not a substantial claim.
Premisecitation§ Transparency and diversity to advance legal-scientific communicationUsers of scientific research need transparency so that they can distinguish between scientific claims that are safe to rely on and those that are not.
“As psychologist and meta-scientist Simine Vazire has noted, users of scientific research need transparency so that they can distinguish between scientific claims that are safe to rely on and those that are not:”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites [10] Vazire, 2017, Quality uncertainty erodes trust in science, Collabra source
Not checked in the free run.
Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.
PremisecitationLearned academics are well placed to organise these reviews because they are not aligned with any particular interest in the justice system and have access to leading scientists.
“They conclude by observing that learned academics are well placed to organise these reviews because they are not aligned with any particular interest in the justice system and have access to leading scientists [9].”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites [9] Chin, 2024, A plan for systematic reviews for high-need areas in forensic science, Forensic Sci. Int.: Synergy
Not checked in the free run.
Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable), S4 (based).
Interpretationreasoning§ Transparency and diversity to advance legal-scientific communicationExpert evidence is an area where courts are particularly vulnerable to error.
“Whilst the possibility of error or mistake is not limited to cases involving expert evidence, expert evidence is an area where courts are particularly vulnerable to error.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimClassified as probably not a substantial claim.
PremisecitationThe respondents mostly viewed the annexures positively, with just over half reporting they were helping them to better explain their science to a lay audience.
“The respondents mostly viewed the annexures positively, with just over half reporting they were ‘helping them to better explain their science to a lay audience’ [7].”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites [7] Ballantyne, 2024, A transparent approach: openness in forensic science reporting, Forensic Sci. Int.: Synergy
Not checked in the free run.
The paper relies on this without support.
There has been an exponential growth in scientific research in many forensic areas.
“There has been an exponential growth in scientific research in many forensic areas.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Much of this research is of uneven quality and there is often a lack of transparency in the research, which is necessary for the accurate assessment of its reliability.
“As the conference organisers recognised, much of this research is of uneven quality and there is often a lack of transparency in the research, which is necessary for the accurate assessment of its reliability.”
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 [33]
The sections on Martire et al. and Ballantyne et al. describe academic–practitioner collaboration and a police forensic department’s initiative to improve understanding of error and transparency in reporting (page numbers unavailable). These examples support an ongoing effort to improve forensic practice, but the paper does not establish a commitment across the global forensic community or specifically document initiatives by professional bodies. (LLM, conf=0.82)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.
Two different articles have the same DOI
MinorReferences 6 and 7 list different articles with different article numbers, but assign both the same DOI. A DOI cannot identify both articles.
“7. Ballantyne K.N. A transparent approach: openness in forensic science reporting Forensic Sci. Int.: Synergy 8 2024 100474 10.1016/j.fsisyn.2024.100470 PMC11087997 38737993”
“6. Martire K.A. Understanding “error” in the forensic sciences: a primer Forensic Sci. Int.: Synergy 8 2024 100470 10.1016/j.fsisyn.2024.100470 PMC11240290 39005839”
Cites
A brief history of research synthesis
Chalmers, I., Hedges, L. V., & Cooper, H. (2002) · Evaluation & the Health Professions · doi:10.1177/0163278702025001003 · Cited by 552 · see citing works
Quality Uncertainty Erodes Trust in Science
Vazire, S. (2017) · Collabra: Psychology · doi:10.1525/collabra.74 · Cited by 106 · see citing works
Where Are the Self-Correcting Mechanisms in Science?
Vazire, S., & Holcombe, A. O. (2022) · Review of General Psychology · doi:10.1177/10892680211033912 · Cited by 81 · see citing works
Communication, forensic science, and the law
Hackman, L. (2021) · WIREs Forensic Science · doi:10.1002/wfs2.1396 · Cited by 20 · see citing works
Forensic DNA Interpretation and Human Factors: Improving the Practice Through a Systems Approach
Taylor, M. K. (2024) · doi:10.6028/nist.ir.8503 · Cited by 14 · see citing works
A transparent approach: Openness in forensic science reporting
Ballantyne, K. N., Summersby, S., Pearson, J. R., Nicol, K., Pirie, E., Quinn, C., & Kogios, R. (2024) · Forensic Science International: Synergy · doi:10.1016/j.fsisyn.2024.100474 · Cited by 13 · see citing works
Rethinking scientific communication in courts: A question of credibility
Heavey, A. L., & Houck, M. M. (2024) · Forensic Science International Synergy · doi:10.1016/j.fsisyn.2024.100483 · Cited by 13 · see citing works
Understanding ‘error’ in the forensic sciences: A primer
Martire, K. A., Chin, J. M., Davis, C., Edmond, G., Growns, B., Gorski, S., Kemp, R. I., Lee, Z., Verdon, C. M., Jansen, G., et al. (2024) · Forensic Science International: Synergy · doi:10.1016/j.fsisyn.2024.100470 · Cited by 9 · see citing works
Self-citationA plan for systematic reviews for high-need areas in forensic science
Chin, J. M., Arabia, A.-M., McKinnon, M., Page, M. J., & Searston, R. A. (2024) · Forensic Science International Synergy · doi:10.1016/j.fsisyn.2024.100542 · Cited by 8 · see citing works
Self-citationSummersby, S., Edmond, G., Kemp, R. I., Ballantyne, K. N., & Martire, K. A. (2024) · Forensic Science International · doi:10.1016/j.forsciint.2024.112034 · Cited by 5 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
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
“The ongoing commitment from the global forensic community to im - proving 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, 33–40 ].”
- Authors
- Chin, J. M., & Baker, J. B.
- Affiliations
- Australian National University (AU)
- ACT Government (AU)
- Corresponding author
- Chin, Jason M.
- ORCID
- Chin, Jason M.
- Venue
- Forensic Science International: Synergy
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2024
- Volume
- 9
- Pages
- 100557
- ISSN
- 2589-871X (ISSN-L)
- PMC
- PMC11440334
- OpenAlex
- W4402698190
- Semantic Scholar
- 37f2c4431882664641b408645c3cfb3265101ba5
- Cited by
- 1
- References
- 9
- Citations by year
- 2025: 1
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Forensic Science International Synergy (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Information Systems and Management › Academic Publishing and Open Access
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › History and Philosophy of Science › Publishing and Scholarly Communication
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › History and Philosophy of Science › Academic Writing and Publishing
- Keywords
- transparency, diversity, forensic science, science communication, public understanding of science
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.
Claims read by deepseek-v4.1-flash under definition version 3 (extract-v3) on 2026-10-09.
Classified by jev-1.13-20260917 (gold-guideline-v0.2) on 2026-10-09.
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
