Should peer review be used to vet scientific facts and/or opinions introduced in court cases?

Answer Explanations

• Yes

  user-184082
  It must be useful
• Yes

  user-205139
  The best system for neutral decisions.
• Yes

  user-242774
  Yes, I am sure there is a lot of "junk" science that gets into courtrooms from all sorts of lawyers and so-called "experts".  I would also hazard a guess that some of the science used is intentionally misused/misinterpreted and in some cases not all revealed and used for ulterior motives.
• Yes

  user-819800
  Yes, one scientist can say one thing but whether it’s true, a bending of the facts or incorrect should be checked.
• Yes

  user-138703
  but only by the expert in the given field
• Yes

  user-82093
  Yes
• Yes

  user-156962
  It would be good to have a number of different opinions on any results. But this will draw out any court cases. And who checks how the reviewers were chosen? 
• Yes

  user-523578
  There are practice guidelines published and regularly updated by medical societies in every area of health sciences.
• Yes

  user-643355
  It must be an improvement 
• Yes

  user-475346
  I think this should manifest itself in that peer-reviewed journal articles should be the basis for evidence presented in court.  There still can be "cherry-picking" of articles but this would decrease the opportunities for one side to search through various experts whose opinion supports their case.  
• Yes

  user-623341
  as above
• Yes

  user-935064
  A qualified yes.  Peer review has drifted away from reliance on evidence and can be prone to normative thinking.  Studies have shown that peer review is not a panacea.  Indeed, works on bending science and the influence that funders have on the substance and tone of published papers is disturbing.
• Yes

  user-109201
  Peer review process always good for getting information of all facets of the matter/ case. It would always open up new aspects involved.
• Yes

  user-619625
  Peer review is an essential step to check scientific facts introduced in court cases
• Yes

  user-484477
   Scientific evidence presented in court should undergo rigorous peer review to ensure its reliability and validity. Judges should consider the quality of the scientific research and the consensus within the scientific community when evaluating evidence. 
• Yes

  user-562202
  Yes, this will improve the quality of the facts or opinions introduced in court cases.
• Yes

  user-199257
  Given the complexity and competitiveness of the scientific system, I believe it is essential
• Yes

  user-494570
  Peer review appears to have a crucial role if it is not biased and possibly overlooks is avoided
• Yes

  user-573085
  Peer review should be at least one measuring stick for the level of reliability of opinion introduced in a court case.  Other measuring sticks could involved current research that has not had the time to be peer-reviewed. In a recent review that I published in a peer-reviewed journal on novel agent Serenoa repens, the review included not only English-language but a global review with foreign-language peer-reviewed papers translated to English.  This raised key issues that would be otherwise missed focusing only on English-language papers. 
• No

  user-210238
  For the reasons stated above.
• Yes

  user-444118
  In as much as peer reviewed publications are included in the court proceedings, yes. If you are talking about having a group of peers sitting in the court room to "vet" arguments being present there - no. Peer reviewers need to take their time to carefully consider the science being presented, something that may not be available in a court room.
• No

  user-151889
  The idea that an additional "expert" or "experts" should review the case is likely to create a panel of "experts" who may or may not be in a position to make peer reviews. The field of toxicology for example is very large and fast moving. Using the adversary system with experts chosen by the parties is more likely to know and express the basis for their opinions and the "truth" is usually found by the jury or the judge. Junk science is over emphasized by industry, because they are often the defendant in large toxic tort cases and have money to create "doubt" with purchased articles in captive journals.
• Yes

  user-535602
  Peer review is a valuable process in the scientific community for evaluating the quality and validity of research findings before they are published in scholarly journals. While it can serve as an important quality control mechanism, its applicability to the legal system is limited. In court cases, scientific evidence is often subject to scrutiny by both parties' legal teams, who may call upon expert witnesses to present and challenge the evidence. Peer-reviewed research may be cited during these proceedings, but the peer review process itself does not guarantee absolute reliability or validity.

  Furthermore, not all relevant scientific evidence is published in peer-reviewed journals. Some crucial data may come from sources such as government reports, industry studies, or expert testimony, which may not have undergone traditional peer review. That said, the principles underlying peer review—rigorous evaluation by qualified experts—are valuable in the legal system. Judges and juries rely on expert witnesses to provide reliable scientific information, and these experts should be held to high standards of credibility and expertise.

  Ultimately, while peer-reviewed research can provide valuable evidence in court cases, it's just one factor among many that should be considered in evaluating scientific facts and opinions presented during legal proceedings.

  
  
  

  
  
  
• Yes

  user-215705
  I think it's not often a challenge for both sides of a case to present experts on a topic with each expert offering completely different takes on that subject. To a layperson, it could be difficult to understand the rigor of each expert's opinion. It could be interesting to see some kind of peer review for expert testimony, however, it would likely be a challenge and costly as top experts are shying away from journal peer-review. Peer review results, potentially interpreted by a scientific panel of the court, could yield insight into the rigor of the arguments. However, this could also lead to legal complications especially if peer review happens to be of low quality.
• No

  user-74194
  Peer review of scientific papers is a very low bar. Science should lead law and science is never settled. In science, today's dogma may become tomorrow's fable. Therein lies the rub. 
• No

  user-463486
  Peer review can be a valuable tool in assessing the validity of scientific evidence presented in court. However, relying solely on peer review may not always be sufficient, as the process itself has limitations and can sometimes fail to identify flaws or biases in research. Additionally, the adversarial nature of the legal system means that opposing parties may present conflicting scientific evidence, leaving it up to the judge or jury to weigh the credibility of each.
• Yes

  user-369565
  In my opinion, peer review is essential for ensuring the credibility and reliability of scientific evidence presented in legal proceedings.
• Yes

  user-236807
  Yes it should be used for wider transparency and public outreach 
• No

  user-994314
  The peer review is good enough to publish the ideas and findings but to consider a peer reviewed article a fact to justify an argument simply lacks the very basis of scientific methodology. The peer reviewers are no doubt knowledgeable and established researchers in their field but any research doesn't just explores one or two fields but a myriad of experiments and extensive analysis. Considering merely a peer-reviewed article as a means to justify a certain point of view should not be considered in courts.
• Yes

  user-155273
  Peer review may be an effective method for assessing scientific facts and views used in court cases since it ensures the reliability as well as the credibility of the evidence provided.
• Yes

  user-532952
  Usually, the lawyers involved will ask for peer review of so called "facts" promulgated  by the opposing legal team. My publications are published on ResearchGate and I am rapidly able to navigate  and quote relevant  scientific  publications
  
  
• Yes

  user-851905
  If science hasn't been peer reviewed it should not be discussed as if the findings are reliable.
• Yes

  user-718562
  Using peer review to vet scientific facts and opinions introduced in court cases can enhance the reliability and accuracy of the evidence presented, promoting fair outcomes and supporting the integrity of the legal process
• Yes

  user-642158
  Although peer-review is not perfect, but, it is a more robust means of reaching the most correct opinion or fact. In fact, almost all scientific facts are through peer review
• Yes

  user-18157
  Given that peer review is intended to assess the rigor and validity of research, I believe that implementing this process could help ensure that only high-quality and credible scientific evidence is presented in court. 
• Yes

  user-320876
  Indeed, the perspective of experts in court cases is crucial. I have participated in numerous vaccine-injury cases, offering my evidence-based opinions on clinical and laboratory tests for various children harmed by vaccines. One case, now before the NVIC court, remains unresolved. In this instance, DOJ attorneys have downplayed and belittled my expertise as a senior immunologist to avoid awarding compensation.