Towards cumulative forensic science: a commentary on ‘Methodological problems in every black-box study of forensic firearm comparisons’

Abstract Cuellar et al. recently found that methodological flaws in black-box studies of forensic firearms analysis mean that validity cannot be determined from those studies. Their paper can also be read to indicate that the presence of some of these flaws means that the associated study is so unsound that it can only be used to plan future properly designed validation studies. We seek to clarify that each of the identified flaws, taken individually, does not necessarily prevent studies from contributing to a strong, cumulative research basis for forensic practices. That said, we agree that the overall body of research must avoid the flaws identified by Cuellar et al., and, based on their analysis, it appears the overall body of research has not avoided these flaws. We go on to suggest practices that can help ensure forensic science studies can efficiently and safely build on each other.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Law Probability and Risk
Published
2025-12-09
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1093/lpr/mgaf016
Primary Topic
Forensic and Genetic Research
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Towards cumulative forensic science: a commentary on ‘Methodological problems in every black-box study of forensic firearm comparisons’

Jason Chin, Kylie E Hunter, Alice Towler, Bethany Growns et al.
Law Probability and Risk
Forensic and Genetic Research
article

Towards cumulative forensic science: a commentary on ‘Methodological problems in every black-box study of forensic firearm comparisons’

Jason Chin, Kylie E Hunter, Alice Towler, Bethany Growns, Adele Quigley‐McBride, Stephanie Summersby, Matthew B. Thompson, Rachel A Searston
article en

Abstract

Abstract Cuellar et al. recently found that methodological flaws in black-box studies of forensic firearms analysis mean that validity cannot be determined from those studies. Their paper can also be read to indicate that the presence of some of these flaws means that the associated study is so unsound that it can only be used to plan future properly designed validation studies. We seek to clarify that each of the identified flaws, taken individually, does not necessarily prevent studies from contributing to a strong, cumulative research basis for forensic practices. That said, we agree that the overall body of research must avoid the flaws identified by Cuellar et al., and, based on their analysis, it appears the overall body of research has not avoided these flaws. We go on to suggest practices that can help ensure forensic science studies can efficiently and safely build on each other.

Law Probability and RiskVol. 25(1)
Australian National University (AU), The University of Sydney (AU), Victoria Police (AU), The University of Queensland (AU), Murdoch University (AU), Simon Fraser University (CA), University of Canterbury (NZ), National Health and Medical Research Council (AU), The University of Adelaide (AU)
Openalex Percentile: Top 21%
Forensic and Genetic Research
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.