Open practices in our science and our courtrooms
Advocates of transparency in science often point to the benefits of open practices for the scientific process. Here, we focus on a possibly underappreciated effect of standards for transparency: their influence on non-scientific decisions. As a case study, we consider the current state of probabilis...
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | Trends in genetics 2022-02, Vol.38 (2), p.113-115 |
|---|---|
| Hauptverfasser: | , |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | eng |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| container_end_page | 115 |
|---|---|
| container_issue | 2 |
| container_start_page | 113 |
| container_title | Trends in genetics |
| container_volume | 38 |
| creator | Edge, Michael D. Matthews, Jeanna Neefe |
| description | Advocates of transparency in science often point to the benefits of open practices for the scientific process. Here, we focus on a possibly underappreciated effect of standards for transparency: their influence on non-scientific decisions. As a case study, we consider the current state of probabilistic genotyping software in forensics. |
| doi_str_mv | 10.1016/j.tig.2021.09.010 |
| format | Article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_pubme</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_9191822</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><els_id>S0168952521002717</els_id><sourcerecordid>2594293343</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c403t-8d3400d3ff26f4f413649074d7e6246522767f87195234291876f688fe0abe3e3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9kMtOwzAQRb0A0VL4ADYoSzYJ40deQkJCiJdUqRtYW6kzLq6SONhJJf4el5YKNmxseXznzOgQckEhoUCz63UymFXCgNEEygQoHJFpqBdxmbJ0Qk69XwNAmvP0hEy4yAWIlE0JLHrsot5VajAKfWS6yI4u8spgpzCquvr7rcIxOGtbf0aOddV4PN_fM_L2-PB6_xzPF08v93fzWAngQ1zUXADUXGuWaaEF5ZkoIRd1jhkTWcpYnuW6yGlYjwtW0iLPdFYUGqFaIkc-I7c7bj8uW6wVdoOrGtk701buU9rKyL8_nXmXK7uRJQ0wxgLgag9w9mNEP8jWeIVNU3VoRy9ZWoa5nAseonQXVc5671AfxlCQW7tyLYNdubUroZTBbui5_L3foeNHbQjc7AIYLG0MOrmXWhuHapC1Nf_gvwCAhYuD</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Access Repository</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2594293343</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Open practices in our science and our courtrooms</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Elsevier ScienceDirect Journals Complete</source><creator>Edge, Michael D. ; Matthews, Jeanna Neefe</creator><creatorcontrib>Edge, Michael D. ; Matthews, Jeanna Neefe</creatorcontrib><description>Advocates of transparency in science often point to the benefits of open practices for the scientific process. Here, we focus on a possibly underappreciated effect of standards for transparency: their influence on non-scientific decisions. As a case study, we consider the current state of probabilistic genotyping software in forensics.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0168-9525</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1016/j.tig.2021.09.010</identifier><identifier>PMID: 34740452</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>England: Elsevier Ltd</publisher><subject>Forensic Genetics ; Forensic Sciences ; Humans ; open practices ; open science</subject><ispartof>Trends in genetics, 2022-02, Vol.38 (2), p.113-115</ispartof><rights>2021 The Author(s)</rights><rights>Copyright © 2021 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c403t-8d3400d3ff26f4f413649074d7e6246522767f87195234291876f688fe0abe3e3</cites><orcidid>0000-0001-8773-2906</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tig.2021.09.010$$EHTML$$P50$$Gelsevier$$Hfree_for_read</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>230,314,780,784,885,3550,27924,27925,45995</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34740452$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Edge, Michael D.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Matthews, Jeanna Neefe</creatorcontrib><title>Open practices in our science and our courtrooms</title><title>Trends in genetics</title><addtitle>Trends Genet</addtitle><description>Advocates of transparency in science often point to the benefits of open practices for the scientific process. Here, we focus on a possibly underappreciated effect of standards for transparency: their influence on non-scientific decisions. As a case study, we consider the current state of probabilistic genotyping software in forensics.</description><subject>Forensic Genetics</subject><subject>Forensic Sciences</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>open practices</subject><subject>open science</subject><issn>0168-9525</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2022</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNp9kMtOwzAQRb0A0VL4ADYoSzYJ40deQkJCiJdUqRtYW6kzLq6SONhJJf4el5YKNmxseXznzOgQckEhoUCz63UymFXCgNEEygQoHJFpqBdxmbJ0Qk69XwNAmvP0hEy4yAWIlE0JLHrsot5VajAKfWS6yI4u8spgpzCquvr7rcIxOGtbf0aOddV4PN_fM_L2-PB6_xzPF08v93fzWAngQ1zUXADUXGuWaaEF5ZkoIRd1jhkTWcpYnuW6yGlYjwtW0iLPdFYUGqFaIkc-I7c7bj8uW6wVdoOrGtk701buU9rKyL8_nXmXK7uRJQ0wxgLgag9w9mNEP8jWeIVNU3VoRy9ZWoa5nAseonQXVc5671AfxlCQW7tyLYNdubUroZTBbui5_L3foeNHbQjc7AIYLG0MOrmXWhuHapC1Nf_gvwCAhYuD</recordid><startdate>20220201</startdate><enddate>20220201</enddate><creator>Edge, Michael D.</creator><creator>Matthews, Jeanna Neefe</creator><general>Elsevier Ltd</general><scope>6I.</scope><scope>AAFTH</scope><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7X8</scope><scope>5PM</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8773-2906</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>20220201</creationdate><title>Open practices in our science and our courtrooms</title><author>Edge, Michael D. ; Matthews, Jeanna Neefe</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c403t-8d3400d3ff26f4f413649074d7e6246522767f87195234291876f688fe0abe3e3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2022</creationdate><topic>Forensic Genetics</topic><topic>Forensic Sciences</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>open practices</topic><topic>open science</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Edge, Michael D.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Matthews, Jeanna Neefe</creatorcontrib><collection>ScienceDirect Open Access Titles</collection><collection>Elsevier:ScienceDirect:Open Access</collection><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><collection>PubMed Central (Full Participant titles)</collection><jtitle>Trends in genetics</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Edge, Michael D.</au><au>Matthews, Jeanna Neefe</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Open practices in our science and our courtrooms</atitle><jtitle>Trends in genetics</jtitle><addtitle>Trends Genet</addtitle><date>2022-02-01</date><risdate>2022</risdate><volume>38</volume><issue>2</issue><spage>113</spage><epage>115</epage><pages>113-115</pages><issn>0168-9525</issn><abstract>Advocates of transparency in science often point to the benefits of open practices for the scientific process. Here, we focus on a possibly underappreciated effect of standards for transparency: their influence on non-scientific decisions. As a case study, we consider the current state of probabilistic genotyping software in forensics.</abstract><cop>England</cop><pub>Elsevier Ltd</pub><pmid>34740452</pmid><doi>10.1016/j.tig.2021.09.010</doi><tpages>3</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8773-2906</orcidid><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 0168-9525 |
| ispartof | Trends in genetics, 2022-02, Vol.38 (2), p.113-115 |
| issn | 0168-9525 |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_9191822 |
| source | MEDLINE; Elsevier ScienceDirect Journals Complete |
| subjects | Forensic Genetics Forensic Sciences Humans open practices open science |
| title | Open practices in our science and our courtrooms |
| url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-05T07%3A46%3A10IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_pubme&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Open%20practices%20in%20our%20science%20and%20our%20courtrooms&rft.jtitle=Trends%20in%20genetics&rft.au=Edge,%20Michael%20D.&rft.date=2022-02-01&rft.volume=38&rft.issue=2&rft.spage=113&rft.epage=115&rft.pages=113-115&rft.issn=0168-9525&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016/j.tig.2021.09.010&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_pubme%3E2594293343%3C/proquest_pubme%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2594293343&rft_id=info:pmid/34740452&rft_els_id=S0168952521002717&rfr_iscdi=true |