LETTER
Letter to the Editor – Black-box studies do not reflect decisions and errors in casework
First published: 13 May 2025
No abstract is available for this article.
REFERENCES
- 1Scurich N, Albright TD, Stout P, Eudaley D, Neuman M, Hundl C. The Hawthorne effect in studies of firearm and toolmark examiners. J Forensic Sci. 2025; 70(4): 1329–1337. https://doi.org/10.1111/1556-4029.70047
- 2Cuellar M, Vanderplas S, Luby A, Rosenblum M. Methodological problems in every black-box study of forensic firearm comparisons. Law Probab Risk. 2024; 23(1):mgae015. https://doi.org/10.1093/lpr/mgae015
- 3Dror IE, Scurich N. (Mis)use of scientific measurements in forensic science. Forensic Sci Int Synergy. 2020; 2: 333–338. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fsisyn.2020.08.006
- 4Khan K, Carriquiry AL. Shining a light on forensic black-box studies. Stat Pub pol. 2023; 10(1):2216748. https://doi.org/10.1080/2330443X.2023.2216748
- 5Dror IE. The error in ‘error rate’: why error rates are so needed, yet so elusive. J Forensic Sci. 2020; 65(4): 1034–1039. https://doi.org/10.1111/1556-4029.14435
- 6 Committee on Identifying the Needs of the Forensic Sciences Community, National Research Council. Strengthening forensic science in the United States: a path forward. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press; 2009.
- 7 President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST). Report to the President—Forensic science in criminal courts: ensuring scientific validity of feature-comparison methods. 2016. [cited 2025 Apr 16 ]. Available from: https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/sites/default/files/microsites/ostp/PCAST/pcast_forensic_science_report_final.pdf.
- 8Saks MJ. Does research funding affect research findings? DePaul L Rev. 2025; 2: 619–665.
