Bali, A. S., Edmond, G., Ballantyne, K. N., Kemp, R. I., & Martire, K. A. (2020). Communicating forensic science opinion: An examination of expert reporting practices. Science & Justice, 60(3), 216-224. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scijus.2019.12.005

Bali, A. S., Edmond, G., Ballantyne, K. N., Kemp, R. I., & Martire, K. A. (2021). Corrigendum to Communicating forensic science opinion: An examination of expert reporting practices [Sci. Justice 60 (3) (2020) 216-224]. Science and Justice, 61(4), 449-450. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scijus.2021.04.001

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

Brook C, Lynøe N, Eriksson A, Balding D (2021) Retraction of a peer reviewed article suggests ongoing problems within Australian forensic science. Forensic Science International: Synergy, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fsisyn.2021.100208

Chin, J.M. (2020). Pre-recorded expert evidence in intimate partner violence cases. Current Issues in Criminal Justice. 32(4), 458. https://doi.org/10.1080/10345329.2020.1830505 

Chin, J. M., Cullen, J. H., & Clarke, B. (2023). The prejudices of expert evidence. Monash Law Review, 48(2), 1-39. https://doi.org/10.31222/osf.io/nxcvy; or preprint.

Chin, J. M., Growns, B., Sebastian, J., Page, M. J., 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, or preprint.

Chin, J. M., & Ibaviosa, M.C. (2022). Beyond CSI: Calibrating public beliefs about the reliability of forensic science through openness and transparency. Science & Justice, 62(3), 272-283. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scijus.2022.02.006, or preprint.

Chin, J.M. & McFadden, R. (2020). Expert witness codes of conduct for forensic practitioners: a review and proposal for reform” Canadian Journal of Law and Justice. 2, 23. https://doi.org/10.31228/osf.io/54jau  

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.,  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. https://doi.org/10.31228/osf.io/t954x

Dorison, C. A., Lerner, J. S., Heller, B. H., Rothman, A. J., Kawachi, I. I., Wang, K., . . . Coles, N. A. (2022). In COVID-19 Health Messaging, Loss Framing Increases Anxiety with Little-to-No Concomitant Benefits: Experimental Evidence from 84 Countries. Affective science, 3(3), 577-602.

Edmond, G., Martire, K.A., & San Roque, M. (2017). Expert reports and the forensic sciences. University of New South Wales Law Journal, 40(2), 590–637. [PDF]

Edmond, G., Tangen, J. M., Searston, R. A., & Dror, I. E. (2014). Contextual bias and cross-contamination in the forensic sciences: The corrosive implications for investigations, plea bargains, trials and appeals. Law, Probability & Risk, 14(1), 1-25. https://doi.org/10.1093/lpr/mgu018

Edmond, G., Thompson, M. B., & Tangen, J. M. (2014). 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]

Houck, M. M., Chin, J. M., Swofford, H., Gibb, C. (2022) Registered reports in forensic science. Royal Society Open Science, 9(11), 221076. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsos.221076

Howes, L. M., Martire, K. A., & Kelty, S. F. (2014). Response to recommendation 2 of the 2009 NAS report – standards for formatting and reporting expert evaluative opinions: Where do we stand? Forensic Science Policy & Management: An International Journal, 5(1-2), 1-14. https://doi.org/10.1080/19409044.2014.880973

Lee, H. D. H., McKimmie, B. M., Masser, B. M., & Tangen, J. M. (2021). Guided by the rape schema: The influence of event order on how jurors evaluate the victim's testimony in cases of rape. Psychology, Crime & Law, 29(1), 25-55. https://doi.org/10.1080/1068316x.2021.1984483

Martire, K. A., Edmond, G., Navarro, D. J., & Newell, B. R. (2017). On the likelihood of “encapsulating all uncertainty. Science and Justice, 57(1), 76 -79. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scijus.2016.10.004

Martire, K. A., Kemp, R. I., & Newell, B. R. (2013). The psychology of interpreting expert evaluative opinions. Australian Journal of Forensic Sciences, 45(3), 305-314. https://doi.org/10.1080/00450618.2013.784361

Martire, K. A., Kemp, R. I., Sayle, M. A., & Newell, B. R. (2014). On the interpretation of likelihood ratios in forensic science evidence: Presentation formats and the weak evidence effect. Forensic Sciences International, 240, 61-68. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forsciint.2014.04.005

Martire, K. A., Kemp, R. I., Watkins, I., Sayle, M. A., & Newell, B. R. (2013). The expression and interpretation of uncertain forensic science evidence: Verbal equivalence, evidence strength and the weak evidence effect. Law & Human Behavior, 37(3), 197-207. https://doi.org/10.1037/lhb0000027

Martire, K. A., & Watkins, I. (2015). Perception problems of the verbal scale: A reanalysis and application of a membership function approach. Science and Justice, 55(4), 264-273. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scijus.2015.01.002

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

Ribeiro, G., Likwornik, H., & Chin, J. M. (2022). Visual decision aids: Improving laypeople's understanding of forensic science evidence. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1037/mac0000026; or preprint.

Ribeiro, G., Tangen, J. M., & McKimmie, B. M. (2019). Beliefs about error rates and human judgment in forensic science. Forensic Science International, 297(1), 138–147. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forsciint.2019.01.034

Ribeiro, G., Tangen, J., & McKimmie, B. (2020). Does DNA evidence in the form of a likelihood ratio affect perceivers’ sensitivity to the strength of a suspect’s alibi? Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 27(6), 1325-1332. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-020-01784-x

Ross, R., Martire, K. A., & Kramer, K. (2017). Consistent with: What doctors say and jurors hear. Australian Journal of Forensic Sciences, 51(1),109–116. https://doi.org/10.1080/00450618.2017.1324583

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

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

van Antwerpen, N., Turnbull, D., & Searston, R. A. (2022). Perspectives from Journalism Professionals on the Application and Benefits of Constructive Reporting for Addressing Misinformation. International Journal of Press/Politics. https://doi.org/10.1177/19401612211072782

Wang, K., Goldenberg, A., Dorison, C. A., Miller, J. K., Uusberg, A., Lerner, J. S., . . . van Schie, K. (2022). Erratum: Author Correction: A multi-country test of brief reappraisal interventions on emotions during the COVID-19 pandemic (Nature human behaviour (2021) 5 8 (1089-1110)). Nature human behaviour, 6(9), 1318-1319.

Wray-Jones, N. & Chin, J. M. (2021) “Can ADR improve expert evidence?” 95 The Australian Law Journal 467. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3863689