Literature DB >> 35129820

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

Alan Wayne Jones1.   

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.
© 2022. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Bibliometrics; Citation analysis; Expert testimony; Forensic science; Legal medicine; Peer-review; Scientific publishing; Scientometrics

Mesh:

Year:  2022        PMID: 35129820     DOI: 10.1007/s12024-021-00447-0

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Forensic Sci Med Pathol        ISSN: 1547-769X            Impact factor:   2.007


  39 in total

1.  Measuring the quality of editorial peer review.

Authors:  Tom Jefferson; Elizabeth Wager; Frank Davidoff
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2002-06-05       Impact factor: 56.272

2.  The history of the peer-review process.

Authors:  Ray Spier
Journal:  Trends Biotechnol       Date:  2002-08       Impact factor: 19.536

3.  The evolution of editorial peer review.

Authors:  J C Burnham
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  1990-03-09       Impact factor: 56.272

4.  The impact of Daubert on the admissibility of forensic anthropology expert testimony.

Authors:  Kate M Lesciotto
Journal:  J Forensic Sci       Date:  2015-02-26       Impact factor: 1.832

5.  Peer Review Matters: Research Quality and the Public Trust.

Authors:  Evan D Kharasch; Michael J Avram; J David Clark; Andrew J Davidson; Timothy T Houle; Jerrold H Levy; Martin J London; Daniel I Sessler; Laszlo Vutskits
Journal:  Anesthesiology       Date:  2021-01-01       Impact factor: 7.892

Review 6.  The peer review process: a primer for JNIS readers.

Authors:  Joshua A Hirsch; Laxmaiah Manchikanti; Felipe C Albuquerque; Thabele M Leslie-Mazwi; Michael H Lev; Italo Linfante; J Mocco; Ansaar T Rai; Pamela W Schaefer; Robert W Tarr
Journal:  J Neurointerv Surg       Date:  2015-04-17       Impact factor: 5.836

Review 7.  Peer review in forensic science.

Authors:  Kaye N Ballantyne; Gary Edmond; Bryan Found
Journal:  Forensic Sci Int       Date:  2017-05-25       Impact factor: 2.395

8.  Misconduct accounts for the majority of retracted scientific publications.

Authors:  Ferric C Fang; R Grant Steen; Arturo Casadevall
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2012-10-01       Impact factor: 11.205

9.  'Scholarly peer reviewing': The art, its joys and woes.

Authors:  Madhuri S Kurdi
Journal:  Indian J Anaesth       Date:  2015-08

10.  Responsibility for scientific misconduct in collaborative papers.

Authors:  Gert Helgesson; Stefan Eriksson
Journal:  Med Health Care Philos       Date:  2018-09
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.