|
|
|
|
| LEADER |
01605nam a2200205Ia 4500 |
| 001 |
10.1007-s11229-022-03685-z |
| 008 |
220517s2022 CNT 000 0 und d |
| 020 |
|
|
|a 00397857 (ISSN)
|
| 245 |
1 |
0 |
|a Is forensic science in crisis?
|
| 260 |
|
0 |
|b Springer Science and Business Media B.V.
|c 2022
|
| 856 |
|
|
|z View Fulltext in Publisher
|u https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-022-03685-z
|
| 520 |
3 |
|
|a The results of forensic science are believed to be reliable, and are widely used in support of verdicts around the world. However, due to the lack of suitable empirical studies, we actually know very little about the reliability of such results. In this paper, I argue that phenomena analogous to the main culprits for the replication crisis in psychology (questionable research practices, publication bias, or funding bias) are also present in forensic science. Therefore forensic results are significantly less reliable than is commonly believed. I conclude that in order to obtain reliable estimates for the reliability of forensic results, we need to conduct studies analogous to the large-scale replication projects in psychology. Additionally, I point to some ways for improving the reliability of forensic science, inspired by the reforms proposed in response to the replicability crisis. © 2022, The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature B.V.
|
| 650 |
0 |
4 |
|a Forensic science
|
| 650 |
0 |
4 |
|a Funding bias
|
| 650 |
0 |
4 |
|a Questionable research practices
|
| 650 |
0 |
4 |
|a Reliability
|
| 650 |
0 |
4 |
|a Replicability crisis
|
| 650 |
0 |
4 |
|a Wrongful convictions
|
| 700 |
1 |
|
|a Sikorski, M.
|e author
|
| 773 |
|
|
|t Synthese
|
