Once more, we get a university talking about “great breakthroughs” in forensic analysis. This one is abut collecting “trace” DNA from hair shafts (i.e “shed hair”) which “improves success rates” not seen using prior methods.
My main gripe is that these schools almost never reveal where the studies’ data has been peer reviewed and published. Sadly, that in itself generally takes one to two years to accomplish AFTER the results are obtained.
The PR writers always want the scoop.
Someone wiser than me has suggested that there be a professional archive that would allow the data to be available to competent researchers before a written paper gets in print. The Journal of the American Academy of Forensic Sciences (sadly it only has an Impact Factor of 1.14) takes that long, even though they publish 6 journals per years.
Im sure the bio-medical journals would HATE that idea of a data archive.
Here is another example, although more descriptive, about 3D scanning impression evidence like tires and footwear. An added issue is its direct connection with commercial enterprise all in the same article. Some would expect a bit of conformation bias to be present.