Incorrect statistical reasoning in Guyll et al. leads to biased claims about strength of forensic evidence.
- DOI
- 10.1073/pnas.2315431121
- Published
- 2024 Nov 5
- Container
- Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America
- Publisher
- Not recorded
- Open access
- yes
Credibility signals
limited evidence Score 45/100 under policy 1.0.0. This is a metadata assessment, not a judgment of the paper's conclusions.
Show all credibility signals
- cautionDOI registered: No matching Crossref record was present in this response.
- cautionDOI resolves: No matching Crossref record was present in this response.
- 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.
- supportingOpen access status: Normalized open-access status: open.
- 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.
- cautionMetadata completeness: 5 of 6 scored descriptive metadata groups are present; missing fields increase uncertainty.
Cite this work
BibTeX
@article{allodium:10.1073/pnas.2315431121,
title = {Incorrect statistical reasoning in Guyll et al. leads to biased claims about strength of forensic evidence.},
author = {Rosenblum M and Chin ET and Ogburn EL and Nishimura A and Westreich D and Datta A and Vanderplas S and Cuellar M and Thompson WC},
year = {2024},
journal = {Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America},
doi = {10.1073/pnas.2315431121},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2315431121}
}RIS
TY - JOUR TI - Incorrect statistical reasoning in Guyll et al. leads to biased claims about strength of forensic evidence. AU - Rosenblum M AU - Chin ET AU - Ogburn EL AU - Nishimura A AU - Westreich D AU - Datta A AU - Vanderplas S AU - Cuellar M AU - Thompson WC PY - 2024 JO - Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America DO - 10.1073/pnas.2315431121 UR - https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2315431121 ER -
APA
M, R., ET, C., EL, O., A, N., D, W., A, D., S, V., M, C., & WC, T. (2024). Incorrect statistical reasoning in Guyll et al. leads to biased claims about strength of forensic evidence.. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2315431121
Source records
- pubmed · retrieved 2026-09-25T13:10:59.038Z