research paper on forensic science

• Search Menu
• Sign in through your institution
• Advance Articles

Special Issues

• High-Impact Collection
• Author Guidelines
• Submission Site
• Call for Papers
• Open Access Options
• Self-Archiving Policy
• Why Publish with Us?
• About Forensic Sciences Research
• Journal Metrics
• About the Academy of Forensic Science
• Editorial Board
• Advertising & Corporate Services

Editors-in-Chief

Hejian Wu Duarte Nuno Vieira

About the journal

Forensic Sciences Research is a fully Open Access, peer-reviewed journal publishing high-quality research that is innovative and has international impact in various disciplines of forensic sciences.

Latest articles

Latest posts on x.

Submit your work

Submit your manuscript for consideration to be included in a 2023 issue of Forensic Sciences Research . 

Review Author Guidelines Submission Site Why Submit?

Read and Publish deals

Authors interested in publishing in Forensic Sciences Research may be able to publish their paper Open Access using funds available through their institution’s agreement with OUP. 

Find out if your institution is participating 

Email alerts

Register to receive email alerts as soon as new content from Forensic Sciences Research is published online. 

Follow  Forensic Science Research on Twitter

Follow @ForSciRes for the latest from Forensic Sciences Research and the forensic science community. 

Follow @ForSciRes

Meet the Editorial Board

Learn more about the team behind the journal.

Editorial board

Reasons to publish

Forensic Sciences Research  is an Open Access international, peer-reviewed journal publishing high-quality, original research. 

Find out more and submit

High-Impact Research Collection

Explore the most cited, most read, and most discussed articles published in  Forensic Sciences Research in recent years and discover what has caught the interest of your peers.

Browse the collection

Special Issues from Forensic Sciences Research focus on a particular subject of current interest. They contain both reviews and original research articles by leading scientists in the field. 

Browse all Special Issues 

Related Titles

• X (formerly Twitter)
• Advertising and Corporate Services
• Journals Career Network

Affiliations

• Online ISSN 2471-1411
• Print ISSN 2096-1790
• Copyright © 2024 Academy of Forensic Science
• About Oxford Academic
• Publish journals with us
• University press partners
• What we publish
• New features  
• Open access
• Institutional account management
• Rights and permissions
• Get help with access
• Accessibility
• Advertising
• Media enquiries
• Oxford University Press
• Oxford Languages
• University of Oxford

Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the University's objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide

• Copyright © 2024 Oxford University Press
• Cookie settings
• Cookie policy
• Privacy policy
• Legal notice

This Feature Is Available To Subscribers Only

Sign In or Create an Account

This PDF is available to Subscribers Only

For full access to this pdf, sign in to an existing account, or purchase an annual subscription.

• You are here:
• American Chemical Society
• Discover Chemistry
• Science Releases

Recent advances in forensic science research

For immediate release, acs news service weekly presspac: april 20, 2022.

Forensic scientists collect and analyze evidence during a criminal investigation to identify victims, determine the cause of death and figure out “who done it.” Below are some recent papers published in ACS journals reporting on new advances that could help forensic scientists solve crimes. Reporters can request free access to these papers by emailing  newsroom@acs.org .

“Insights into the Differential Preservation of Bone Proteomes in Inhumed and Entombed Cadavers from Italian Forensic Caseworks” Journal of Proteome Research March 22, 2022 Bone proteins can help determine how long ago a person died (post-mortem interval, PMI) and how old they were at the time of their death (age at death, AAD), but the levels of these proteins could vary with burial conditions. By comparing bone proteomes of exhumed individuals who had been entombed in mausoleums or buried in the ground, the researchers found several proteins whose levels were not affected by the burial environment, which they say could help with AAD or PMI estimation.

“Carbon Dot Powders with Cross-Linking-Based Long-Wavelength Emission for Multicolor Imaging of Latent Fingerprints” ACS Applied Nanomaterials Jan. 21, 2022 For decades, criminal investigators have recognized the importance of analyzing latent fingerprints left at crime scenes to help identify a perpetrator, but current methods to make these prints visible have limitations, including low contrast, low sensitivity and high toxicity. These researchers devised a simple way to make fluorescent carbon dot powders that can be applied to latent fingerprints, making them fluoresce under UV light with red, orange and yellow colors.

“Proteomics Offers New Clues for Forensic Investigations” ACS Central Science Oct. 18, 2021 This review article describes how forensic scientists are now turning their attention to proteins in bone, blood or other biological samples, which can sometimes answer questions that DNA can’t. For example, unlike DNA, a person’s complement of proteins (or proteome) changes over time, providing important clues about when a person died and their age at death.

“Integrating the MasSpec Pen with Sub-Atmospheric Pressure Chemical Ionization for Rapid Chemical Analysis and Forensic Applications” Analytical Chemistry May 19, 2021 These researchers previously developed a “MasSpec Pen,” a handheld device integrated with a mass spectrometer for direct analysis and molecular profiling of biological samples. In this article, they develop a new version that can quickly and easily detect and measure compounds, including cocaine, oxycodone and explosives, which can be important in forensics investigations.

The American Chemical Society (ACS) is a nonprofit organization chartered by the U.S. Congress. ACS’ mission is to advance the broader chemistry enterprise and its practitioners for the benefit of Earth and all its people. The Society is a global leader in promoting excellence in science education and providing access to chemistry-related information and research through its multiple research solutions, peer-reviewed journals, scientific conferences, e-books and weekly news periodical Chemical & Engineering News . ACS journals are among the most cited, most trusted and most read within the scientific literature; however, ACS itself does not conduct chemical research. As a leader in scientific information solutions, its CAS division partners with global innovators to accelerate breakthroughs by curating, connecting and analyzing the world’s scientific knowledge. ACS’ main offices are in Washington, D.C., and Columbus, Ohio.

Registered journalists can subscribe to the ACS journalist news portal on EurekAlert! to access embargoed and public science press releases. For media inquiries, contact newsroom@acs.org .

Note: ACS does not conduct research but publishes and publicizes peer-reviewed scientific studies.

Media Contact

ACS Newsroom newsroom@acs.org

Discover Chemistry  —Menu

• News Releases
• ACS in the News

Accept & Close The ACS takes your privacy seriously as it relates to cookies. We use cookies to remember users, better understand ways to serve them, improve our value proposition, and optimize their experience. Learn more about managing your cookies at Cookies Policy .

1155 Sixteenth Street, NW, Washington, DC 20036, USA |  service@acs.org  | 1-800-333-9511 (US and Canada) | 614-447-3776 (outside North America)

• Terms of Use
• Accessibility

Copyright © 2024 American Chemical Society

An official website of the United States government

Official websites use .gov A .gov website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.

Secure .gov websites use HTTPS A lock ( Lock Locked padlock icon ) or https:// means you've safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

• Publications
• Account settings
• Advanced Search
• Journal List

Forensic science. The importance of identity in theory and practice

• Author information
• Article notes
• Copyright and License information

Received 2019 Sep 9; Accepted 2019 Sep 9; Collection date 2019.

This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

There is growing consensus that there is a crisis in forensic science at the global scale. Whilst restricted resources are clearly part of the root causes of the crisis, a contested identity of forensic science is also a significant factor. A consensus is needed on the identity of forensic science that encompasses what forensic science ‘is’, and critically, what it is ‘for’. A consistent and cogent identity that is developed collaboratively and accepted across the entire justice system is critical for establishing the different attributes of the crisis and being able to articulate effective solutions. The degree to which forensic science is considered to be a coherent, interdisciplinary yet unified discipline will determine how forensic science develops, the challenges it is able to address, and how successful it will be in overcoming the current crisis.

Keywords: Forensic science, Funding, Policy, Identity, Interdisciplinary, Value

1. Introduction

Forensic Science has been the subject of intense global scrutiny in the last ten years. Key reports from the US and the UK have included the National Academy of Science [ 1 ], the Law Commission [ 2 ], The annual reports of the UK Forensic Science Regulator [ [3] , [4] , [5] , [6] ], the UK Government Chief Scientific Adviser annual report [ 7 ], the US PCAST report [ 8 ], successive UK House of Commons Science and Technology Committee [ [9] , [10] , [11] , [12] , [13] ], and the House of Lords Science and Technology Select Committee [ 14 ]. The scope and remit of these different reports has been varied, but one issue on which they agree is that forensic science is facing significant challenges locally and globally and ‘profound changes to funding and governance are required to ensure that forensic science survives and begins to flourish rather than lurching from crisis to crisis’ ( [ 6 ]:3).

2. Forensic science in crisis?

The most recent inquiry by the House of Lords [ 14 ] was distinctive in taking a broad remit to address the whole ecosystem of forensic science (from crime scene to court). In so doing it brought together voices from a broad range of relevant domains (the police, advocates, judiciary, scientists, researchers, government ministries and policy makers). While the focus was on England and Wales, core themes that came out of the inquiry included the current lack of oversight, accountability and responsibility for forensic science; the impact of the instability and unsustainability of the market for forensic science provision; and the challenges around agreeing, achieving and enabling quality standards; how science is used and understood within the justice system; and in supporting and enabling technological developments and foundational research in forensic science. These challenges affect different stages of the forensic science process [ 15 , 16 ]. For example, the current forensic science market in England and Wales has profound impacts on what materials are collected from a crime scene and which are not; what tests are commissioned and which are not; how those tests are carried out; and how the findings are ultimately reported. It is also possible that how science in court is understood can have an impact on the weight assigned to science evidence in a case, as well as the nature of the requests for additional materials (such as digital evidence from a tablet device) and the timeframes given for the production of those materials for a court [ 14 ].

It is clear that these challenges are systemic issues that need to be addressed for forensic science to develop and deliver the science that is needed to contribute to the robust delivery of justice. There are however, two critical factors that have exacerbated these challenges and arguably brought the system to the point of ‘crisis’ [ 14 ]. First, the lack of resources and successive funding cuts experienced across the whole sector (not only in policing and the courts but also in forensic service provision and research) [ 5 , 17 , 18 ]. The second factor that has emerged is that the crisis conditions are, at least in part, due to the loosely or even undefined nature of the identity of forensic science outside of the discipline. A contested identity of forensic science leads to different assumptions about what forensic science is, what it should be, and what it is for. This can result in different sectors and stakeholders holding different views of what the crisis ‘is’, what its constituents are, and therefore the best solution(s). After all, if it is not possible to agree on the diagnosis, it is difficult to agree the best treatment.

3. How have got here? The importance of identity and epistemology

The term used to name a discipline will define what that discipline is, sets a trajectory for how it will evolve, and shapes the perspectives of both those within and those outside the discipline [ 19 ]. Therefore, the name of a discipline, and its identity, is core to its credibility, strategic importance and therefore to its future. Forensic science has evolved as a field of enquiry over time and is often considered to be a ‘patchwork of sciences’ that can be applied to questions pertinent to forensic investigations [ 20 ]. It is often referred to as ‘forensics’ or the ‘forensic sciences’ to convey the premise that it is a multidisciplinary field that takes methods and techniques from ‘parent’ or ‘core’ sciences and applies them to ‘forensic’ questions.

3.1. Forensics

The term ‘forensics’ is challenging nomenclature. Technically ‘forensic’ is a term originally used as an adjective to describe ‘belonging to, used in, or suitable for the courts’. As a result, the term ‘forensic science’ came to be used to describe the science applied to questions of law. However, alongside ‘forensic science’, ‘forensics’ has become established as a term, and generally speaking it is often used as a synonymous (but shortened) version of ‘forensic science’, even though the term in and of itself is arguably (technically) meaningless.

‘Forensics’ has come to have its own (often contested) meaning. While it is still used interchangeably with ‘forensic science’ in many instances, a ‘forensics’ model has emerged within forensic science that has become a dominant approach, and understanding of, the identity of ‘forensic science’ [ 16 ]. Within ‘forensics’ the focus is predominantly upon how parent disciplines (such as chemistry, biology, computer science, geology) can assist in the exploitation of evidence within the criminal justice system. In this approach, the crime scene is considered to be a distinct activity generally addressed by the police in an operational and processing capacity [ 15 , 16 ], and often these activities are directed at answering questions of source and identity. As a result, ‘forensics’ is now a widely used term within policing. However, this can convey a narrow remit for forensic science that primarily addresses the detection of forensic materials (source attribution), rather than the whole crime reconstruction process that incorporates a consideration of activity and offence level propositions [ 21 , 22 ] within the matrix of multiple stakeholders and external factors that frame the deployment of forensic science from crime scene to court [ 15 , 23 ].

3.2. Forensic sciences

The term ‘Forensic Sciences’ communicates a collection of applied ‘core sciences’ and therefore a ‘field of interest’, rather than a clearly defined discipline in its own right. Taking this approach is attractive because it addresses the operational needs that require answers to the ‘what’ and ‘who’ source questions in crime detection (what is this particle made of? who left this DNA profile?). A focus on these operational needs also leads to valuable developments in terms of technological advances to achieve those answers more quickly and accurately (for example enabling rapid DNA analysis in a custody suite, or real time fingerprint analysis).

However, there are two issues with this approach or ‘model’ of Forensic Science. First technologies are often transposed in to a ‘forensic’ problem without sufficient regard for the specific context in forensic reconstruction [ 15 ]. For example, consider the development of a powerful new technique for detecting trace amounts of material to distinguish between materials from different locations. However, the new technique requires a long sample preparation time, and an expensive piece of equipment that is not currently in standard forensic science laboratories. The cost implication of both of these attributes is likely to make the use of this breakthrough new technique unlikely (at least in the short term) [ 24 , 25 ]. While the new technique that has been developed addresses the ‘forensic problem’ (of distinguishing between materials from two locations) in isolation, it can not be considered to be ‘forensic science’, because the research has been designed in a way that is not sensitive to the context in which the new technique needs to be employed (ie it does not address the constraints of finance, time and personnel inherent to forensic science). The second issue is that considering Forensic Science as the ‘forensic sciences’ removes the possibility of a coherent and truly interdisciplinary approach for the scientific endeavour of crime reconstruction and evaluation [ 15 , 16 , 26 ]. It presents a very narrow view of forensic science, and one that constrains forensic science to a a limited range of activities (usually related to the crime scene and analysis of specimens for forensic service delivery), and prevents a full consideration and appreciation of the contribution of science to the complex ecosystem of the justice system. As such it becomes very difficult to offer a comprehensive understanding of the value of forensic science [ 27 , 28 ] which has significant implications for where investment of resources is channelled.

3.3. Forensic science: A fragmented ecosystem

The identity of what forensic science ‘is’ is therefore, contested. However, what forensic science is ‘for’ is equally contested. Through different lenses, forensic science is considered to be a service, a science, a practice, or evidence. As a result of this identity crisis, forensic science is a highly fragmented ecosystem. This can be seen at the small scale, in an individual case where the ‘atomisation’ of the forensic science process means that different individuals and institutions are responsible for distinct parts (for example, one team addresses the scene, one scientist looks at trace evidence on one exhibit, a different scientist in a different institution deals with the DNA analysis from a different exhibit), rather than having a harmonised approach [ 23 , 29 ]. It is also seen at the larger scale in the fragmentation of forensic service provision in the UK with both in-house police and private company providers of forensic services. In addition investigations are often carried out in a piecemeal way with a lack of coherence between investigations and the courts [ 14 ].

Within the research domain this identity issue is also evident. What forensic science is considered to be for has created tensions over whether the purpose of forensic science research is primarily for developing analytical or technological solutions for investigators or service providers, or whether there is also value in undertaking foundational science that develops theory to underpin the whole forensic science process from detection to evaluative interpretation. This lack of clarity has led to a situation where it is often unclear where responsibility for research and development belongs in forensic science, and therefore who is accountable and responsible for it.

Given the fragmented nature of the ecosystem, it is therefore perhaps not surprising that forensic science is facing such significant challenges. Without a coherent identity of what forensic science is and what it is for, it is difficult for forensic science to fit into the existing structures that nurture and enable its services or its research and development [ 30 ]. Therefore, articulating the identity of forensic science, and agreeing the nature of the discipline is critical to its future, and certainly not merely a matter of semantics. Given the breadth and diversity of forensic science this is not something that can be articulated from one quarter. It will require a collective approach that brings together the breadth of perspectives that forensic science incorporates. This is something that will require incubation and space for ideas to evolve for a consensus to be reached.

3.4. Forensic science: a coherent discipline

To pave the way for that collective approach to consensus, there is however, value in taking stock of where forensic science is currently. It is possible to observe in more recent times an emerging more coherent identity of ‘forensic science’ into a clearly defined discipline with all the hallmarks of a ‘subject’ [ 31 , 32 ]. It has a broadly understood name (there are job titles and building names that include ‘forensic science’), it has professional societies, a large number of university courses, and an internationally peer reviewed body of published literature with increasingly distinct research methods and hypotheses [ 33 ]. Concomitantly, it is possible to observe a transition from forensic science as the application of parent sciences to a ‘forensic problem’ towards a more distinctive, unified interdisciplinary discipline.

As a coherent distinct discipline, forensic science it is possible to see the common principles and processes across its different domains (such as DNA, trace evidence, digital evidence). As a single discipline of Forensic Science (albeit a truly interdisciplinary one), it is possible to offer:

The identification, and articulation of the foundational and overarching principles (reconstruction, detection and prediction) processes (authentication, identification, classification, reconstruction, and evaluation), and activities (survey, preservation, examination, documentation, analysis, integration, and interpretation) of forensic science materials.

The consistent, reproducible and transparent application of the common principles and processes of forensic science that enables evidence-based practice (such as [ [34] , [35] , [36] , [37] ]).

A discipline that can consider physical and digital evidence within the same coherent discipline (i.e. as part of a common framework with shared forensic principles, processes, activities to underpin research and the practice of forensic science) (see [ 34 ]).

A discipline that can address and incorporate the complexity of the whole forensic reconstruction process by addressing the physical, human and digital environments and the theoretical and practical requirements [ 38 ].

A discipline that can address the whole process from crime scene to court (to include source attribution as well as activity level and offence level propositions) in forensic reconstruction theory and practice, that creates collaboration between the diverse stakeholders (science, policing, government, policy, law) [ 15 , 16 , 23 ].

As a single coherent discipline Forensic Science is able to articulate the priorities for both technological developments to answer the questions of ‘what?’ and ‘who?’ as well as the foundational research that will answer the questions of ‘how?’ and ‘when?’. In addition, it is able to incorporate the considerations of human decision making, context, and evaluative interpretation, and uncertainty. It is also able to fuel the development of new theory and lay foundations for the advances necessary to face the challenges currently on the horizon, and those further into the future, by offering the full spectrum and capability of science to the holistic and complex ecosystem of the justice system.

Considering the nature of forensic science as a coherent discipline in this manner is arguably a valuable step towards developing consensus as to what forensic science ‘is’, and critically also what forensic science is ‘for’. Developing an overarching understanding of the practice of forensic science needs to include both the undertaking of casework and delivery of science ‘services’ to support the justice system. It also needs to include the practice of research to develop new tools and theory that addresses each stage of the forensic science process and ensures the health of the innovation pipeline.

4. Conclusion

It is clear that there is growing disquiet about the crisis faced in forensic science. The complexity of the ecosystem means that this crisis has many symptoms and identifying the root causes is still very much an ongoing work in progress [ 14 , 39 ]. However, articulating the identity of forensic science across that ecosystem is key so that it is possible to not only articulate the different facets of the crisis that is faced, but also articulate cogent solutions. The lack of resources and funding to date is without doubt a significant exacerbating factor, but the power of identity in forensic science (and the implications of a contested identity) are clear and so it has never been more important to adopt a broad yet defined articulation of what forensic science is and what it is for. Forensic Science is a coherent interdisciplinary discipline, and as such is very well placed with the tools necessary to deal with the complex matrix within which it must operate. Reaching consensus on its identity and communicating it in ways that are meaningful to different audiences, yet are consistent across the justice system, is going to be key to how forensic science develops, the challenges it can address, and how agile it will be in facing the challenges that are just emerging on the horizon.

Declarations of interest

• 1. National Academy of Science Strengthening forensic science in the United States: a path forward. 2009. http://www.nap.edu/catalog Washington D.C, Available at:
• 2. Law Commission Expert evidence in legal proceedings in England and Wales . 2011. The Forty-Fifth Annual Report of the Law Commission. [ Google Scholar ]
• 3. The Forensic Science Regulator . 2015. Annual Report November 2014 – November 2015. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/482248/2015_FSR_Annual_Report_v1_0_final.pdf available at: [ Google Scholar ]
• 4. The Forensic Science Regulator . 2016. Annual Report November 2015 – November 2016. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/581653/FSR_Annual_Report_v1.0.pdf available at: [ Google Scholar ]
• 5. The Forensic Science Regulator . 2018. Annual Report November 2016 – November 2017. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/674761/FSRAnnual_Report_2017_v1_01.pdf available at: [ Google Scholar ]
• 6. The Forensic Science Regulator . 2019. Annual Report 17th November 2017 – 16th November 2018. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/786137/FSRAnnual_Report_2018_v1.0.pdf available at: [ Google Scholar ]
• 7. Government Chief Scientific Advisor . The Government Office for Science; London: 2015. Forensic Science and beyond: Authenticity, Provenance and Assurance, Evidence and Case Studies. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/forensic-science-and-beyond Available at: [ Google Scholar ]
• 8. President Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST) 2016. Report to the President. Forensic Science and the Criminal Courts: Ensuring Scientific Validity of Feature Comparison Methods. https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/sites/default/files/microsites/ostp/PCAST/pcast_forensic_science_report_final.pdf Available at: [ Google Scholar ]
• 9. House of Commons Science and Technology Committee . 2011. The Forensic Science Service. 7th Report of Session 2010-2012. https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201012/cmselect/cmsctech/855/855.pdf available at: [ Google Scholar ]
• 10. House of Commons Science and Technology Committee . 2013. Forensic Science. Second Report of Session 2013-2014. https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201314/cmselect/cmsctech/610/610.pdf available at: [ Google Scholar ]
• 11. House of Commons Science and Technology Committee . 2018. Disclosure of Evidence in Criminal Cases. 11th Report of Session 2017-2019. https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201719/cmselect/cmjust/859/859.pdf available at: [ Google Scholar ]
• 12. House of Commons Science and Technology Committee . 2018. The Biometrics Strategy and Forensic Services. 5th Report of Session 2017-2019. https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201719/cmselect/cmsctech/800/800.pdf available at: [ Google Scholar ]
• 13. House of Commons Science and Technology Committee . 2019. The Work of the Biometrics Commissioner and the Forensic Science Regulator. 19th Report of Session 2017-2019. https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201719/cmselect/cmsctech/1970/1970.pdf available at. [ Google Scholar ]
• 14. House of Lords Science and Technology Select Committee . 2019. Forensic Science and the Criminal Justice System: a Blueprint for Change. https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld201719/ldselect/ldsctech/333/333.pdf 3rd Report of session 2017-2019 HL Paper 333. available at: [ Google Scholar ]
• 15. Morgan R.M. Conceptualising forensic science and forensic reconstruction; Part I: a conceptual model. Sci. Justice. 2017;57(6):455–459. doi: 10.1016/j.scijus.2017.06.002. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 16. Roux C., Crispino F., Ribaux O. From forensics to forensic science. Curr. Issues Crim. Justice. 2012;24(1):7–24. [ Google Scholar ]
• 17. Chalkley M. Bar Council of England and Wales; 2018. Funding for Justice 2008 to 2018: Justice in the Age of Austerity. https://www.barcouncil.org.uk/media/688940/funding_for_justice-_the_last_10_years_version_-_professor_martin_chalkley.pdf available at: [ Google Scholar ]
• 18. Smith T., Cape E. The rise and decline of criminal legal aid in England and Wales. In: Flynn A.J., Hodgson, editors. Access to Justice and Legal Aid: Comparative Perspectives on Unmet Legal Need. Bloomsbury Publishing; 2017. [ Google Scholar ]
• 19. Armstrong C., Fontaine S.L. The power of naming: names that create and define the discipline. WPA Writ. Progr. Adm. 1989;13(1-2):5–14. [ Google Scholar ]
• 20. Roux C., Talbot-Wright B., Robertson J., Crispino F., Ribaux O., O. The end of the (forensic science) world as we know it? The example of trace evidence. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B. 2015;370(1674):20140260. doi: 10.1098/rstb.2014.0260. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 21. Cook R., Evett I.W., Jackson G., Jones P.J., Lambert J.A. A hierarchy of propositions: deciding which level to address in casework. Sci. Justice. 1998;38(4):231–239. [ Google Scholar ]
• 22. Cook R., Evett I.W., Jackson G., Jones P.J., Lambert J.A. A model for case assessment and interpretation. Sci. Justice. 1998;38(3):151–156. doi: 10.1016/S1355-0306(98)72099-4. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 23. Morgan R.M. Conceptualising forensic science and forensic reconstruction; Part II: the critical interaction between research, policy/law and practice. Sci. Justice. 2017;57(6):460–467. doi: 10.1016/j.scijus.2017.06.003. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 24. Woods B., Lennard C., Kirkbride K.P., RobertsonJ J. Soil examination for a forensic trace evidence laboratory - Part 1: spectroscopic techniques. Forensic Sci. Int. 2014;245:187–194. doi: 10.1016/j.forsciint.2014.08.009. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 25. Morgan R.M. Forensic science: a conceptual overview of reconstruction, detection and disruption. In: Wortley R., Sidebottom A., Laycock G., editors. Handbook of Crime Science. Routledge; Abingdon: 2018. pp. 190–203. [ Google Scholar ]
• 26. Morgan R.M. Forensic science needs the ‘hedgehog’ and the ‘fox’. Forensic Sci. Int. 2018;292:e10–e12. doi: 10.1016/j.forsciint.2018.08.026. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 27. Bitzer S., Margot, O P. Delémont Is forensic science worth it? Policing: J. Policy Pract. 2019;13(1):12–22. [ Google Scholar ]
• 28. Morgan R.M., Levin E.A. A crisis for the future of forensic science: the importance of epistemology for funding research and development: lessons from the UK. Forensic Sci. Int.: Synergy. 2019 doi: 10.1016/j.fsisyn.2019.09.002. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2589871X19301457 in press. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 29. Valjarevic A., Venter H.S. A comprehensive and harmonized digital forensic investigation process model. J. Forensic Sci. 2015;60(6):1467–1483. doi: 10.1111/1556-4029.12823. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 30. Evison M. Forensic science policy and the question of governmental university research quality assessment. Forensic Sci. Int. 2018;290:279–296. doi: 10.1016/j.forsciint.2018.07.028. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 31. Becher T., Trowler P.R. Open University Press; Buckingham: 2001. Academic Tribes and Territories. Intellectual Enquiry and the Culture of Disciplines. [ Google Scholar ]
• 32. Strand T. The discipline of education in a world of change. Nord. Pedagog. 2007;27:265–276. [ Google Scholar ]
• 33. Morgan R.M. Forensic science: interdisciplinary, emerging, contested. In: Davies J.P., Pachler N., editors. Teaching and Learning in Higher Education: Perspectives from UCL. IOE Press; 2018. pp. 235–240. [ Google Scholar ]
• 34. Organisation of Scientific Area Committees for Forensic Science (OSAC) A framework for harmonizing forensic science practices and digital/multimedia evidence. OSAC technical series 0002. 2018. https://www.nist.gov/sites/default/files/documents/2018/01/10/osac_ts_0002.pdf Available at.
• 35. Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE) Codes of Practice. https://www.gov.uk/guidance/police-and-criminal-evidence-act-1984-pace-codes-of-practice available at. [last accessed, 6th August 2019]
• 36. The Forensic Science Regulator, Forensic Science Providers: Codes of Practice and Conduct. 2014. https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/forensic-science-providers-codes-of-practice-and-conduct available at: [ Google Scholar ]
• 37. The Forensic Science Regulator, Legal Guidance. 2012. https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/fsr-legal-guidance available at: [ Google Scholar ]
• 38. Page H., Horsman G., Sarna A., Foster J. A review of quality procdures in te UK forensic Sciences: what can the field of digital forensics learn? Sci. Justice. 2019;59(1):83–92. doi: 10.1016/j.scijus.2018.09.006. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 39. Government Response to the Lords Science and Technology Select Committee Report: Forensic Science and the Criminal Justice System: a Blueprint for Change. https://www.parliament.uk/documents/lords-committees/science-technology/forensic-science/Govt-response-forensic-science.pdf Available at.
• View on publisher site
• PDF (249.6 KB)
• Collections

Similar articles

Cited by other articles, links to ncbi databases.

• Download .nbib .nbib
• Format: AMA APA MLA NLM

Add to Collections

Journal of Forensic Sciences

As the official publication of AAFS, the Journal of Forensic Sciences (JFS) brings you original investigations, observations, scholarly inquiries and reviews in various branches of the forensic sciences. Through the JFS , we aim to strengthen the scientific foundation of forensic science in legal and regulatory communities around the world. If you are not a member of the Academy, you must subscribe to JFS in order to access full length articles or utilize the purchase instant access option.  

Explore this section

• Frequently Asked Questions
• JFS Editorial Board
• Author Information
• JFS Statement on the Use of Artificial Intelligence
• About JFS Noteworthy Articles
• JFS Issues 1972 to 2005

I would like to express our heartfelt gratitude once again for your invaluable assistance in facilitating the publication of our research. We are truly delighted with the exceptional quality of work displayed throughout the rigorous evaluation process. Your commitment to excellence is evident and greatly appreciated.

Based on our positive experience, I am excited to share with you that we will definitely be submitting our future manuscripts to this esteemed journal. Your dedication to advancing scholarly research is commendable, and we look forward to collaborating again in the future.

Thank you once more for your unwavering support and professionalism.

What is the JFS Noteworthy Articles initiative?

JFS Noteworthy Articles is a collection of JFS articles chosen to feature some of the most impactful scientific articles representing the breadth and multidisciplinary nature of forensic science. JFS Editors select the articles annually, which are in turn featured as a special collection made openly available and free to read for a limited period of time. Selection of an article for the collection highlights the published work of author(s) or a research team.

• List of 2023 Noteworthy Articles
• View Articles
• Frequently Asked Questions - Noteworthy Articles

Virtual Issue Celebrating National Forensic Science Week!

The articles in this collection illustrate how  JFS  has been an important vehicle in helping the forensic science community understand the breadth, depth, and complexity of the digital world – which truly touches all aspects of forensic science.

From the Current Issue

• Early View Articles
• Latest Issue
• A review of the contributions of forensic archaeology and anthropology to the process of...
• Investigative genetic genealogy for human remains identification
• Selective postmortem arterial angiography of head and neck using digital x‐ray or computed...

From the Journal

There are over 6,000 current JFS articles that are digitally available, and that number is continuously increasing as authors are aiming to publish new research everyday in order to keep up with the tremendous advancement of forensic science. Use these resources to properly navigate JFS content. 

• September 2024 Issue with Special Section on Disaster Victim Identification
• September 2023 Issue with Special Section on Fentanyl and its Analogs in Forensic Science
• Most accessed
• Browse Free Sample Issue
• 2022 JFS Noteworthy Articles
• 2021 JFS Noteworthy Articles
• 2020 JFS Noteworthy Articles
• 2019 JFS Noteworthy Articles
• 2023 JFS Virtual Issue: The Path Forward – Forensic Sciences Response to the National Academies of Sciences Report 2009
• 2022 JFS Virtual Issue: Role of Forensic Anthropology in Mass Disaster Identification
• 2021 JFS Virtual Issue: Forensic Science and Terrorism
• 2020 JFS Virtual Issue: Advances in Pattern Recognition

For Authors

Each year, JFS publishes scientific research from authors around the world. We welcome original manuscript submissions focusing on research with theoretical or practical implications for the forensic sciences. 

• Subscribe to JFS

As a dues paying AAFS member, you receive a digital subscription to the Journal of Forensic Sciences . Students of AAFS receive discounted journal access.

• Renew your membership

Recent JFS News

Jfs honors peer review week 2024, announcing wiley research heroes prize, jfs compiles virtual issue to celebrate national forensic science week, journal of forensic sciences announces “special section on disaster victim identification”..., jfs announces ninth forensic lab talks seminar, journal of forensic sciences announces new associate editor, jfs announces eighth forensic lab talks seminar, jfs newly published july 2024 issue now available, jfs announces seventh forensic lab talks seminar.