Judges’ perceptions of expert reports: The effect of neuroscience evidence
- DOI
- 10.1016/j.ijlp.2018.09.008
- Published
- 2018-11
- Container
- International Journal of Law and Psychiatry
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Open access
- unknown
Credibility signals
uncertain Score 64/100 under policy 1.0.0. This is a metadata assessment, not a judgment of the paper's conclusions.
Show all credibility signals
- supportingDOI registered: A matching record was returned by Crossref.
- supportingDOI resolves: A matching record was returned by Crossref.
- not scoredDirectory of Open Access Journals: No matching DOAJ record was present in this response. No allow-list match; this is not evidence of low credibility.
- not scoredMEDLINE indexed: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made.
- not scoredOpenAlex core source: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made.
- not scoredKnown publisher allow-list: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made.
- not scoredROR affiliation: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made.
- not scoredRetraction Watch retraction: No retraction notice matched this DOI in the deployed snapshot. No matching event found; coverage may be incomplete.
- not scoredRetraction Watch expression of concern: No expression of concern notice matched this DOI in the deployed snapshot. No matching event found; coverage may be incomplete.
- not scoredRetraction Watch correction: No correction notice matched this DOI in the deployed snapshot. No matching event found; coverage may be incomplete.
- not scoredRetraction Watch reinstatement: No reinstatement notice matched this DOI in the deployed snapshot. No matching event found; coverage may be incomplete.
- not scoredOpen access status: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made.
- not scoredPublication license: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made.
- not scoredPublication version: A publication version was supplied but is not scored.
- supportingMetadata completeness: All 6 scored descriptive metadata groups are present.
Cite this work
BibTeX
@article{allodium:10.1016/j.ijlp.2018.09.008,
title = {Judges’ perceptions of expert reports: The effect of neuroscience evidence},
author = {Valerie Moulin and Caroline Mouchet and Tessa Pillonel and G.-M. Gkotsi and Bernard Baertschi and Jacques Gasser and Benoit Testé},
year = {2018},
journal = {International Journal of Law and Psychiatry},
doi = {10.1016/j.ijlp.2018.09.008},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijlp.2018.09.008}
}RIS
TY - JOUR TI - Judges’ perceptions of expert reports: The effect of neuroscience evidence AU - Valerie Moulin AU - Caroline Mouchet AU - Tessa Pillonel AU - G.-M. Gkotsi AU - Bernard Baertschi AU - Jacques Gasser AU - Benoit Testé PY - 2018 JO - International Journal of Law and Psychiatry DO - 10.1016/j.ijlp.2018.09.008 UR - https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijlp.2018.09.008 ER -
APA
Moulin, V., Mouchet, C., Pillonel, T., Gkotsi, G., Baertschi, B., Gasser, J., & Testé, B. (2018). Judges’ perceptions of expert reports: The effect of neuroscience evidence. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijlp.2018.09.008
Source records
- crossref · retrieved 2026-09-27T10:58:31.433Z