Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The STEP trials

A round-up of the STEP phase 3 clinical trials evaluating semaglutide for weight loss in people with overweight or obesity.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Forensic Science, Medicine and Pathology
Published in: Forensic Science, Medicine and Pathology 1/2022

01-03-2022 | Original Article

Highly cited forensic practitioners in the discipline legal and forensic medicine and the importance of peer-review and publication for admission of expert testimony

Author: Alan Wayne Jones

Published in: Forensic Science, Medicine and Pathology | Issue 1/2022

Login to get access

Abstract

Peer-review of manuscripts submitted to scholarly journals for publication dates back ~ 350 years and this process represents the foundation of scientific publishing. After a manuscript has undergone and survived a rigorous peer-review, this conveys a stamp of approval, because it signifies the work has been checked by independent experts in the scientific discipline concerned. The publication and citation track records of people instructed to appear as expert witness in civil and criminal litigation are important considerations. Using a publically available database, the most highly cited scientists in the discipline legal and forensic medicine were identified. For each scientist, a composite score was calculated based on six different citation metrics; (i) Total number of citations, (ii) H-index, (iii) Hm-index, which modifies the H-index for multi-authored papers, (iv) Citations to single-author papers, (v) Citations to single and first author papers and (vi) citations to single, first and last author papers. The top 100,000 most highly cited scientists from all disciplines were identified along with the top 2% of the most highly cited in each of 176 sub-fields. The latest version of the citation databases, up to the end of 2020, classified 14.163 people as having legal and forensic medicine as their primary research discipline. Of these, there were 29 names listed among the top 100,000 most highly cited in all disciplines and 299 were among the top cited 2% in their particular sub-field. More than 50% of the highly cited forensic practitioners resided in four countries (USA, Germany, UK and Australia). The top-ten most highly cited individuals were the same in all four versions of the database (2017, 2018, 2019 and 2020) and represented the sub-disciplines of toxicology (n = 3), genetics/DNA/heredity (n = 3), whereas two specialized in pathology/toxicology and two in pathology/genetics.
Literature
1.
Daubert vs Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, 509 U.S. 579, 113S.Ct. 2786, 125 L.Ed.2d 469 (1993).
2.
Lesciotto KM. The impact of Daubert on the admissibility of forensic anthropology expert testimony. J Forensic Sci. 2015;60:549–55.PubMedCrossRef
3.
Kharasch ED, Avram MJ, Clark JD, Davidson AJ, Houle TT, Levy JH, et al. Peer review matters: Research quality and the public trust. Anesthesiology. 2021;134:1–6.PubMedCrossRef
4.
Jefferson T, Wager E, Davidoff F. Measuring the quality of editorial peer review. JAMA. 2002;287:2786–90.PubMedCrossRef
5.
Fournier LR. The Daubert guidelines: usefulness, utilization, and suggestions for improving quality control. J App Res Mem Cogn. 2016;5:308–13.CrossRef
6.
Helgesson G, Eriksson S. Responsibility for scientific misconduct in collaborative papers. Med Health Care Philos. 2018;21:423–30.PubMedCrossRef
7.
Fang FC, Steen RG, Casadevall A. Misconduct accounts for the majority of retracted scientific publications. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2012;109:17028–33.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
8.
9.
Jana S. A history and development of peer-review process Ann Lib Inf Stud. 2019;66:152–62.
10.
11.
Ballantyne KN, Edmond G, Found B. Peer review in forensic science. Forensic Sci Int. 2017;277:66–76.PubMedCrossRef
12.
Drummond R. Editorial peer review, its development and rationale. In: Goodless F, Jefersson T, editors. Peer review in health sciences. 2nd ed. London: BMJ; 2003. p. 1–13.
13.
Hirsch JA, Manchikanti L, Albuquerque FC, Leslie-Mazwi TM, Lev MH, Linfante I, et al. The peer review process: a primer for JNIS readers. J Neurointerv Surg. 2017;9:e3-6.PubMedCrossRef
14.
15.
Kelly J, Sadeghieh T, Adeli K. Peer review in scientific publications: Benefits, critiques, & a survival guide. EJIFCC. 2014;25:227–43.PubMedPubMedCentral
16.
17.
Haug CJ. Peer-review fraud–Hacking the scientific publication process. N Engl J Med. 2015;373:2393–5.PubMedCrossRef
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
Garfield E. When to cite. Libr Q. 1996;6:449–58.
23.
Ioannidis JPA, Baas J, Klavans R, Boyack KW. A standardized citation metrics author database annotated for scientific field. PLoS Biol. 2019;17:e3000384.
24.
Ioannidis JPA, Boyack KW, Baas J. Updated science-wide author databases of standardized citation indicators. PLoS Biol. 2020;18:e3000918.
25.
Van Noorden R, Singh CD. Hundreds of extreme self-citing scientists revealed in new database. Nature. 2019;572:578–9.PubMedCrossRef
26.
Jones AW. Forensic journals - bibliometrics and journal impact factors. In: Payne-James J, Byard RW, editors. Encyclopedia of forensic and legal medicine. 2nd ed. Oxford, UK: Elsevier; 2016. p. 528–38.CrossRef
27.
Jones AW. The distribution of forensic journals, reflections on authorship practices, peer-review and role of the impact factor. Forensic Sci Int. 2007;165:115–28.PubMedCrossRef
28.
29.
30.
Bence V, Oppenheim C. The influence of peer review on the research assessment exercise. J Inform Sci. 2004;30:347–68.CrossRef
31.
Jones AW. Some thoughts and reflections on authorship. Alc Alcohol. 1996;31:11–5.
32.
33.
Antonakis J, Bastardoz N, Liu Y, Schriesheim CA. What makes articles highly cited? Lead Q. 2014;25:152–79.CrossRef
34.
Plomp R. The significance of the number of highly cited papers as an indicator of scientific prolificacy. Scientometrics. 1990;19:185–97.CrossRef
35.
36.
Byard RW. The forensic implications of predatory publishing. Forensic Sci Med Pathol. 2016;12:391–3.PubMedCrossRef
37.
38.
Memon AR. Predatory journals spamming for publications: What should researchers do? Sci Eng Ethics. 2018;24:1617–39.PubMedCrossRef
39.
Cukier S, Lalu M, Bryson GL, Cobey KD, Grudniewicz A, Moher D. Defining predatory journals and responding to the threat they pose: a modified Delphi consensus process. BMJ Open. 2020;10:e035561.
40.
Grudniewicz A, Moher D, Cobey KD, Bryson GL, Cukier S, Allen K, et al. Predatory journals: no definition, no defence. Nature. 2019;576:210–2.PubMedCrossRef
41.
42.
43.
Garfield E. Citation indexes for science. A new dimension in documentation through association of ideas. Int J Epidemiol. 2006;35:1123–7.
44.
Jones AW. Evaluating the work of forensic scientists by citation analysis. J Forensic Sci. 1995;40:529–30.CrossRef
45.
Kharasch ED, Avram MJ, Bateman BT, Clark JD, Culley DJ, Davidson AJ, et al. Authorship and publication matters: Credit and credibility. Anesthesiology. 2021;135:1–8.PubMedCrossRef
46.
47.
48.
49.
Wislar JS, Flanagin A, Fontanarosa PB, Deangelis CD. Honorary and ghost authorship in high impact biomedical journals: a cross sectional survey. BMJ. 2011;343:d6128.
50.
Hiss J, Freund M, Kahana T. The forensic expert witness–an issue of competency. Forensic Sci Int. 2007;168:89–94.PubMedCrossRef
51.
Helgesson G. Authorship order and effects of changing bibliometrics practices. Res Ethics. 2020;16:1–7.CrossRef
52.
53.
54.
55.
Schreiber S. A modification of the h-index: the Hm-index accounts for multi-authored manuscripts. J Informetr. 2008;2:211–6.CrossRef
56.
Saks MJ, Albright T, Bohan TL, Bierer BE, Bowers CM, Bush MA, et al. Forensic bitemark identification: weak foundations, exaggerated claims. J Law Biosci. 2016;3:538–75.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
57.
58.
Bell S, Sah S, Albright TD, Gates SJ Jr, Denton MB, Casadevall A. A call for more science in forensic science. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2018;115:4541–4.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
59.
National Academy of Sciences. Strengthening forensic science in the United States: A path forward. National Research Council (Washington DC); 2009. pp. 1–328.
Metadata
Title
Highly cited forensic practitioners in the discipline legal and forensic medicine and the importance of peer-review and publication for admission of expert testimony
Author
Alan Wayne Jones
Publication date
01-03-2022
Publisher
Springer US
Published in
Forensic Science, Medicine and Pathology / Issue 1/2022
Print ISSN: 1547-769X
Electronic ISSN: 1556-2891
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s12024-021-00447-0

Other articles of this Issue 1/2022

Forensic Science, Medicine and Pathology 1/2022 Go to the issue

Acknowledgments

Acknowledgments

Original Article

Cytokine storm and histopathological findings in 60 cases of COVID-19-related death: from viral load research to immunohistochemical quantification of major players IL-1β, IL-6, IL-15 and TNF-α

Correction

Correction to: Cytokine storm and histopathological findings in 60 cases of COVID-19-related death: from viral load research to immunohistochemical quantification of major players IL-1β, IL-6, IL-15 and TNF-α

Correction

Correction to: Rapid development of an iatrogenic aortic dissection following transcatheter aortic valve implantation

Case Report

A case of persistent severe sequelae of COVID-19 infection: potential role in sudden death?

Case Report

Fatal anogenital exenteration of the intestine