Bali, A. S., Martire, K. A., & Edmond, G. (2021). Lay comprehension of statistical evidence: A novel measurement approach. Law and Human Behavior, 45(4), 370–390. https://doi.org/10.1037/lhb0000457

Chin, J. M. (2023). Law and psychology must think critically about effect sizes. Discover Psychology, 3(3).  https://doi.org/10.1007/s44202-022-00062-2

Chin, J. M., DeHaven, A. C., Heycke, T., Holcombe, A. O., Mellor, D. T., Pickett, J. T., Steltenpohl, C. N., Vazire, S., & Zeiler, K. (2021). Improving the credibility of empirical legal research: Practical suggestions for researchers, journals, and law schools. Law, Technology and Humans, 3(2), 107-128. https://doi.org/10.5204/lthj.v3i2.1536

Chin, J., Growns, B. & Mellor, D. (2019). Improving expert evidence: The role of open science and transparency. Ottawa Law Review, 50(2), 1-48.  https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3345225

Chin, J. M., Growns. B., Sebastian, J., Page, J.M., Nakagawa, S. (2022). The transparency and reproducibility of systematic reviews in forensic science. Forensic Science International, 340(111472).https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forsciint.2022.111472

Chin, J. M., & Holcombe, O.A. (2022). Rethinking replication in empirical legal research. The University of Western Australia Law Review, 49(2), 76-112. https://doi.org/10.31222/osf.io/4up65

Chin, J.M., McFadden, R. & Edmond G. (2020) Forensic science needs registered reports. Forensic Science International: Synergy. 2, 41. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fsisyn.2019.10.005 

Chin, J. M., Pickett, J. T., Vazire, S., & Holcombe, A. O. (2021). Questionable research practices and open science in quantitative criminology. Journal of Quantitative Criminology. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10940-021-09525-6

Chin, J.M.,  Ribeiro, G., & Reardon, A. (2019). Open Forensic Science. The Journal of Law and the Biosciences. 6(1), 255. https://doi.org/10.1093/jlb/lsz009

Chin, J.M, San Roque, M., McFadden, R. (2020). The New Psychology of Expert Witness Procedure. Sydney Law Review, 42(1), 69 - 96. http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3564796

Edmond, G., Found, B., Martire, K., Ballantyne, K., Hamer, D., Searston, R.A., Thompson, M. B., Cunliffe, E., Kemp, R., San Roque, M., Tangen, J., Dioso-Villa, R., Ligertwood, A., Hibbert, B., White, D., Porter, G., & Roberts, A. (2016). Model forensic science. Australian Journal of Forensic Sciences, 48(5), 496-537. [PDF]

Edmond, G., & Martire, K.A. (2016). Forensic science in criminal courts: The latest scientific insights. Australian Bar Review, 42(3), 367-384. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/311714254_Forensic_science_in_criminal_courts_The_latest_scientific_insights

Edmond, G., Martire, K., Found, B., Kemp, R., Hamer, D., Hibbert, B., Ligertwood, A., Porter, G., San Roque, M., Searston, R. A., Tangen, J. M., Thompson, M. B., & White, D. (2014). How to cross-examine forensic scientists: A guide for lawyers. Australian Bar Review, 39(2), 174-197. [PDF]

Edmond, G., Thompson, M. B., & Tangen, J. M. (2013). A guide to interpreting forensic testimony: Scientific approaches to fingerprint evidence. Law, Probability & Risk, 13(1), 1-25. https://doi.org/10.1093/lpr/mgt011 [PDF]

Edmond, G., Towler, A., Growns, B., Ribeiro, G., Found, B., White, D., Ballantyne, K., Searston, R. A., Thompson, M. B., Tangen, J. M., Kemp, R. I., & Martire, K. (2017). Thinking forensics: Cognitive science for forensic practitioners. Science & Justice, 57(2), 144-154. [PDF]

Houck, M. M., Chin, J. M., Swofford, H., & Gibb, C. (2022). Registered reports in forensic science. Royal Society Open Science, 9(221076). https://doi.org/10.1098/rsos.221076

Martire, K. A., & Edmond, G. (2017). Rethinking expert opinion evidence. Melbourne University Law Review, 40(3), 967–998. [PDF]

Martire, K. A., & Kemp, R. I. (2016). Considerations when designing human performance tests in the forensic sciences. Australian Journal of Forensic Sciences, 50(2), 166–182. https://doi.org/10.1080/00450618.2016.1229815

Meilia, P. D. I., Herkutanto, A.D. S., Cordner, S., Eriksson, A., Kubat, B., Kumar, A., Payne-James, J. J., Rubanzana, W. G., Uhrenholt, L., Freeman, M. D. & Zeegers, M. P. (2021), 'The PERFORM-P (Principles of Evidence-based Reporting in FORensic Medicine-Pathology version). Forensic Science International, 327(4), 110962. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forsciint.2021.110962

Morrison, G. S., Kaye, D. H., Balding, D. J., Taylor, D., Dawid, P., Aitken, C. G. G., Gittelson, S., Zadora, G., Robertson, B., Willis, S., Pope, S., Neil, M., Martire, K. A., Hepler, A., Gill, R. D., Jamieson, A., de Zoete, J., Ostrum, R. B., & Caliebe, A. (2017). A comment on the PCAST report: Skip the “match”/“non-match” stage. Forensic Science International, 272, e7-e9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forsciint.2016.10.018

Neal, S.M.T., Martire, A.K., Johan, L.J., Mathers, M.E. & Otto, K.R. (2022). The Law Meets Psychological Expertise: Eight Best Practices to Improve Forensic Psychological Assessment. Annual Review of Law and Social Science, 18(1), 169-192. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-lawsocsci-050420-010148

Searston, R. A., & Chin, J. M. (2019). The legal and scientific challenge of black box expertise. The University of Queensland Law Journal, 38(2), 237-260. https://ssrn.com/abstract=3411352

Searston, R. A., Thompson, M. B., Robson, S. G., Corbett, B. J., Ribeiro, G., Edmond, G., & Tangen, J. (2019). Truth and transparency in expertise research. Journal of Expertise, 2(4), 199-209. [PDF]

Smith, A.M. & Neal, T.M.S. (2021). The distinction between discriminability and reliability in forensic science. Science & Justice, 61(4), 319-331. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scijus.2021.04.002

Stevenson, C., Kramer, K., Edmond,G. & Martire, K. (2022). Reliability and validity of a quality tool for assessing clinical forensic medicine legal reports. Journal of Forensic and Legal Medicine, 89, 102359. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jflm.2022.102359

Thompson, M. B. & Tangen, J. M. (2014). Generalization in fingerprint matching experiments. Science & Justice, 54(5), 391-392. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scijus.2014.06.008 [PDF]