Skip to main navigation Skip to search Skip to main content

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

Jason M. Chin*, Bethany Growns, Kylie E. Hunter, Adele Quigley-McBride, Rachel A. Searston, Stephanie Summersby, Matthew B. Thompson, Alice Towler

*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

2 Downloads (Pure)

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.

Original languageEnglish
Article numbermgaf016
Pages (from-to)1-12
Number of pages12
JournalLaw, Probability and Risk
Volume25
Issue number1
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Jan 2026
Externally publishedYes

Bibliographical note

Copyright the Author(s) 2026. Version archived for private and non-commercial use with the permission of the author/s and according to publisher conditions. For further rights please contact the publisher.

Keywords

  • experimental design
  • firearms examination
  • meta-analysis
  • open science
  • research synthesis
  • scientific validity

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Towards cumulative forensic science: a commentary on ‘Methodological problems in every black-box study of forensic firearm comparisons’'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this