Forensic investigation must be as thorough and objective as scientific research.\u00a0 Peer review in science ensures that the research is well done.<\/p>\n
Unfortunately, peer review in forensic work is not carried out very often.\u00a0 And when it is there is a risk of bias in how it’s done.\u00a0 This in spite of strict civil procedure rules governing experts and their reports.<\/p>\n
***<\/p>\n
Peer review in science is a process of evaluating scientific work, by an expert or a group of experts in the related field.\u00a0 The scientific worker may or may not know the reviewer(s) – a blind<\/em> peer review.\u00a0 Similarly, the reviewer may or may not know the worker. (after Ref. 1 and Dr. Google)<\/p>\n Bias, or unreasoned judgement, can be blatant, or it can be unintended, sneaking up on us out of the ether. (Refs 2, 3 and 4) Getting rid of bias in peer review is essential to forensic investigation.<\/p>\n ***<\/p>\n The penny dropped for me on a better way compared to current practice when I got an e-mail from a reader, Ruth Corbin, after she read a blog I posted on peer review.\u00a0 (Refs 5, 6)\u00a0 A quick reply to Dr. Corbin included my initial thoughts on how I think we can get rid of bias.\u00a0 These are bulleted below including some additional thoughts.<\/p>\n At present, experts investigate the cause of a problem.\u00a0 They write a report on their investigation and findings.\u00a0 The expert’s report goes to their client, the insurance claims adjuster or the civil litigation lawyer, and from there to the court or dispute resolution tribunal.\u00a0 The investigation and report are seldom peer reviewed.\u00a0 Except in a sense when they are rebutted by the expert for an opposing party.<\/p>\n Just how unbiased is the rebuttal report?\u00a0 If phraseology in some reports is any indication, not much.<\/p>\n (You’ve all seen this phraseology, I’m sure.\u00a0 Just to be really sure though, I’ll update this blog in future with some examples)<\/p>\n A peer review doesn’t have to be a crude denunciation or vetting of an expert’s work.\u00a0 We can get rid of blatant bias.\u00a0 We’re all here to serve the judicial and dispute resolution processes.\u00a0 Finding errors and omissions and fixing them serves that purpose.<\/p>\n A peer or rebuttal review a little closer to that in science would help, one that involves the expert as little as possible in the organizing of a peer review of his work.\u00a0 I think peer review procedures like the following will help, in decreasing order of preference:<\/p>\n I believe the risk of bias is low when the court or dispute resolution tribunal arranges the peer review and high when the rebuttal expert does this.<\/p>\n Summary<\/strong><\/p>\n We can get rid of almost all bias in peer review of forensic investigation and expert services.\u00a0 There are several methods for doing this.\u00a0 The one we chose will reflect our commitment to change and what we’re prepared to accept.\u00a0 We’re accepting a lot of potential bias now.<\/p>\n References<\/strong><\/p>\n (Posted by Eric E. Jorden, M.Sc., P.Eng. Consulting Professional Engineer, Forensic Engineer, Geotechnology Ltd., Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada. ejorden@eastlink.ca<\/span><\/strong>) <\/em><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Forensic investigation must be as thorough and objective as scientific research.\u00a0 Peer review in science ensures that the research is well done. Unfortunately, peer review in forensic work is not carried out very often.\u00a0 And when it is there is … Continue reading
<\/strong><\/p>\n\n
\n