AFTE Archives - Under the Objective

Paving Your Way to Publication

Why Should You Start a Research Project?

In this article, I will take you through the general process of starting your research project and publishing your work in a recognized scientific journal. This task might feel daunting at first, but it’s something that is obtainable and you just have to take one step at a time. Being a good scientist is important, which includes being able to follow procedures and understanding the theory behind the things that we do. But, there is another level that is crucial to the scientific field, and that is to start or participate in a research project. Our science is based on research, and it only moves forward or solidifies its validity through the constant publication of scientific articles.

If you’re a student you may think that a research project is something that you just have to do to pass a class or receive your degree. But it’s so much more than that. As a forensic scientist, you may think that your idea doesn’t matter or that the field has already been fully developed. This is not the case, the field will always have a question to answer or have a technique or procedure that can be refined or given more validity. And if you are a part of a scientific organization this is exactly what they were created to do, aid researchers and spread ideas.

As you read through this article, I hope to give you a vision or a path to start your own research project. You are the one who can move the science forward in your own discipline. Take that next-level initiative and become a contributor to the field.

Finding the Next Great Idea

The most important part of publishing your research is to have a research idea. Hopefully, you have an idea in mind, and if not, I will show you some places that may give you an idea. If you’re a college student, your best option may be to join an ongoing research that is currently being conducted at your institution. Alternatively, you can find a mentor to help you with your new research. The mentor you pick should be working or teaching the relevant subject area so that they can better assist you.

If you are not part of an intuition or looking for your own idea, then internet research will be your best friend. A great place to start your research is looking within a scientific organization that you are a part of or one that aligns with your area of research. For example, AFTE has a committee that will aid examiners in finding a research project that was either abandoned or is needed to fill a gap in the science. Most likely your professional organization will have something similar. OSAC, which is found on the NIST website, posts areas of research that are needed by the scientific community. These areas are created from other research projects that created more questions to be answered, or areas that are under scrutiny and need more research to flush out.

I would like to share a quick success story. A college student used the forums for AFTE to find a research idea and acquire a mentor. He then conducted his research with his mentor’s supervision and guidance. When it came time for the AFTE Annual meeting he presented his work, and everyone was amazed by the amount of dedication this college student had. Because of this, supervisors from different labs walked up onto the stage to give them their business cards so he could apply to their laboratory. From this story, it shows the importance of using the resources that these scientific organizations offer. Sometimes, these organizations offer great resources, but they are seldom used.

After your searching, you will come to an idea that you are passionate about and then the literature review process starts. This is where you will learn what your forefathers accomplished to see if there are any missing pieces in the research or where the research can be expanded upon. At this point you may find out your idea has already been covered excessively and you may need to either tweak your idea or change it altogether. Otherwise, you have secured your idea and are now laser-focused on it. The next step is how will you be funding this new idea.

Funding Your Great Idea

Below is a small summary of some grant opportunities. If you would like more information on a specific grant, feel free to click on the hyperlinks. This list is only meant to guide you in the right direction to seek research funding opportunities, many other grants can be found, especially ones that are specific to your research area.

AFTE

Research and Development (Members): This is a research grant that is given to regular members in AFTE to conduct research in the field of firearm and toolmark identification. I have applied for this grant twice and was accepted with both submissions. Since I went through this process I will provide more detail about this grant.

This grant requires that an application be filled out with the following attachments: a project proposal abstract, a signed rules and assurance form, a budget worksheet, a small literature review of reference material, and a current CV/Resume. Once the application packet is completed it is sent to the Research and Development (R&D) committee for consideration. If the committee approves the application, it is then sent to the Board of Directors for their blessing. Once you achieve their blessing you will receive a check for the seed money, which is 10%-20% of the projected budget. Once the research is completed the R&D committee will reimburse you the remaining amount. Once the money is accepted, it is agreed that the research will be published and will be presented at the Annual Conference.

Research and Development (Students/Trainees) – This grant is similar to the grant above but is only offered to students and trainees in the field of firearm and toolmark identification. This grant also requires that you seek a mentor who is an AFTE member to guide you in your research.

Before moving on to the next grant opportunities I just want to share something I heard from the R&D committee when I attended the last AFTE Annual Conference. The R&D committee discussed how they would like to receive more applications for grant money because they do not receive many applications during the budget year. This was touched upon earlier when I said a lot of these organizations provide valuable resources but they are seldom used, which, to your benefit, will increase your chance of being awarded a grant.

NEAFS

Carol De Forest Forensic Science Research Grant – This grant will award $2,500 for research projects conducted by full-time undergraduate and graduate students. Two awards are given per year. The student must also be located in the following areas: New England, New Jersey, New York, and Pennsylvania. The student must also be majoring in either a natural, allies, or forensic science program. Lastly, the student must have a research advisor from the academic institution they attend.

The student will have to submit an application with the following attachments: 3-6 page research proposal, 1-2 page statement of qualifications, CV, Transcript, and CV and recommendation from the research advisor you chose.

AAFS

Field and Lucas Research Grant – The Field Grant will fund up to $1,500 and the Lucas Grant will fund $1,501-$6,000. This grant is for researchers who initiate original in-depth, problem-oriented research. To receive this grant you must be a member, of any level, of AAFS.

The following is needed to apply for the grant: An abstract, a 1-2 page literature review with no more than 10 references, a detailed budget, a timetable and specific plan for dissemination of results, disclose any current or previous FSF research grants, and the CVs of all researchers involved.

Jan Bashinski Criminalistics Graduate Thesis Assistance Grant – The grant is for full/part-time students completing their graduate degree requirements by conducting a research project at an educational institution. The grant awards $1,850, and funds up to $1,400 to cover travel expenses for the student to present at an AAFS conference.

The student has to fill out an application with the following attachments: a 3-6 page proposal, a 1-2 page statement of qualifications, a CV, a letter of recommendation from your research advisor, and your transcript.

NIJ

Every year NIJ will award grants and cooperative agreements for research, development, evaluation, and training across the spectrum of criminal justice. The site offers a list of all projects that have been awarded, so you can get a feel of what type of projects get awarded. In the field of firearms, a company by the name of Cadre Research Labs receives a significant amount of funding from NIJ to expand the technology of 3D microscopy. NIJ will usually fund projects in their current areas of interest, and unsolicited proposals may not be accepted as easily as competitive solicitations.

Grantforward.com

This website is a valuable resource, which is used as a search engine for grant opportunities. The website will collect data about you and your research and search that information against their database and connect you to the applicable grants. This search engine does require a membership to be able to search, but John Jay students may login using their institution’s credentials. Other academic institutions may offer the same benefits, so check with your institution for details.

Elsevier Funding Solutions

Elsevier will work with researchers to provide grant money for their research, similar to the Grant Forward search engine. To use their services, they require the researcher to contact them when one of their specific product offerings is selected. Please review the website if this may be a fit for you.

Office of Justice Programs

Awards specific grants per year that offer solicitations that support the Forensic Science topics.

What Scientific Journal Fits You?

Once you completed your research it’s time to publish it in a scientific journal. If you applied for a grant, you may be required to publish in the organization’s journal. Otherwise, your choice should be based on the focus of your research. A journal like the Journal of Forensic Science will focus on multiple disciplines in forensic science. A journal like AFTE will focus on a niche group like the firearm and toolmark community. You want to pick the most appropriate journal so that you have the greatest probability of publication and for your article to reach the right group of people. Below are some journals that are commonly used by forensic scientists, this list is not exhaustive, so please look into other journals that may be better suited for your research. I recommend that if you choose a journal that is not on this list, make sure the journal is peer-reviewed. Having an article peer-reviewed will add validity to your published work. It’s one of the first things defense lawyers may ask to ensure that your article can be “trusted”.

AFTE Journal: This Journal focuses on firearms and toolmarks.

Journal of Forensic Science: This Journal publishes a wide variety of disciplines including the following: Anthropology, Criminalistics, Forensic Nursing Science, Odontology, Pathology/Biology, Psychiatry & Behavioral Science, Questioned Documents, Toxicology, Digital & Multimedia Sciences, and General. This journal will cover a lot of research ideas but is one of the toughest journals to get into.

Journal of Forensic Identification: This Journal publishes articles related to forensics. This includes anything from crime scene processing to footwear comparisons. Similar to the Journal of Forensic Science, this Journal publishes a wide range of disciplines.

Forensic Science International: This Journal is another multidiscipline publication but they publish research from around the world.

International Journal of Toxicology: This Journal is specific to toxicologists.

The Publication Process

So far, I have published twice in the AFTE Journal so I will go into some detail about that process, which will hopefully help you through your journey. The first thing I did before entering my submission, as you should do when preparing for your submission, is to look at the publication’s website and see the criteria needed for your submission. Ensure that your submission follows all the rules so that the article can be accepted and published in a timely manner.

In my case after submission, I had to go through two phases of peer review. My first peer reviewer was given my article without my name so that they would not know the identity of the author. This is to mitigate bias for well-known or hardly known authors. The peer reviewer then sends the corrections to the Journal Editor, which will then be sent back to me. The peer reviewer was unknown to me, which allowed the reviewer to be completely honest and negate any bias. At this point, I have the option to accept the corrections or reject them. I then send my corrections and response to the Journal Editor to send back to the peer reviewer. This correspondence happened a couple of times until the peer reviewer and I was happy. After we both came to an agreement the new corrected article was sent to a second peer reviewer to repeat a similar process. After the second peer review process the article was evaluated by the Journal Editor. The article was then formatted, and a draft copy of the formatted version was sent to me for approval. This was my time for any final corrections and to approve the article for publication. Finally, after this point, the article was published for all to enjoy.

Good Luck

I hope that you learned a lot from this article and please feel free to use the contact button at the top of the page if you have any questions. Just remember that the lists provided here were only a small fraction of what is available. Now go out there and contribute to the field of forensic science.

General Laboratory

Discussion about Inconclusives

In other articles on this website, I have briefly discussed inconclusive results in the field of firearm comparisons. This article will dive deeper into what’s the meaning of the conclusion and why it is becoming the object of intense discussion.

AFTE Range of Conclusions

AFTE (The Association of Firearm and Tool Mark Examiners) allows examiners to report three different inconclusive results: Inconclusive A, Inconclusive B, and Inconclusive C.

Inconclusive A

Inconclusive A would be chosen if there is some agreement of individual characteristics and all discernible class characteristics, but insufficient for an identification. This conclusion would mean the examiner was leaning towards an identification but did not have enough information to conclude an identification.

Inconclusive B

Inconclusive B would be chosen if there is an agreement of all discernable class characteristics without agreement or disagreement of individual characteristics due to an absence, insufficiency, or lack of reproducibility. This conclusion would be considered the middle ground where an examiner was not leaning towards an identification or an elimination.

Inconclusive C

Inconclusive C would be chosen if there is agreement of all discernible class characteristics and disagreement of individual characteristics, but is insufficient for an elimination. This conclusion would mean the examiner was leaning towards an elimination but there was just enough information to keep them from eliminating the two items from each other.

Opinion on Reporting Inconclusive

Although AFTE allows examiners to report three different types of inconclusives, I believe that examiners should try to only report “inconclusive” as their result regardless of what way they are leaning. This not only prevents bias but also more accurately conveys the intention of the examiner. For example, if an examiner were to testify and they tell the jury that they made an Inconclusive A conclusion he would have to tell them that there wasn’t enough information to report the comparison as an identification or elimination, but the comparison was leaning towards an identification. I feel like this explanation is taking the inconclusive conclusion and then adding a wink and a nod to the jury that the comparison could have been an identification. This confuses the jury members and also skews the results of the examination.

The examiner who reports “inconclusive” will be more transparent to the jury and the jury will have an easier time understanding the conclusion of the examination. The examiner would explain that during the comparison there was not enough information for an identification and just enough information to reject an elimination. If the markings were not sufficient enough for an identification then the conclusions would be inconclusive and not inconclusive A, because no matter the circumstances it was never enough for an identification.

The Rise of the “Problem”

Their Argument

After the release of the PCAST report the field went to work producing studies that would satisfy the PCAST recommendation for black box studies. The Ames I (Baldwin Study) and the AMES II (Monson Study) were conducted to satisfy that recommendation. These studies were very informative and contained a lot of data to be reviewed by anyone in the field. Although satisfied, people outside the field determined to move the goalpost and stated that the problem of the field and the studies were the inconclusive conclusions. This has now become the main focus of the field and once again examiners are trying to satisfy this challenge.

One of the first times the inconclusives results were stated to be problematic was with Dr. Scurich, who stated that inconclusives should be reported as false positives. He demonstrated this idea by taking the Baldwin study and recalculating the error rates based on his new idea. With the new treatment of inconclusive, the error rate went from 1.01% to 35%.

Dr. Scurich also recommended that a majority approach be implemented when determining the ground truth for a particular comparison. For example, if the preliminary comparison were given to a certain amount of examiners and the majority concluded that the comparison resulted in an inconclusive result; it would mean when the comparisons are given to the actual participants in a study, the conclusions would only be correct if they were to report inconclusive. This would also mean if the majority ruled that a comparison is an identification/elimination, that any participant who concluded an inconclusive would be marked wrong. No matter the ground truth the answer will always have to coincide with the majority rule.

My Argument

We will first look at combining the inconclusives into the error rate of a study. I believe that inconclusives should be treated separately from an identification and elimination, and should not be factored into the error rate. As discussed above an inconclusive carries a lot of meaning. It shows the reader that the examiner did not have enough information for an identification and/or had just enough information keeping them from concluding an elimination. Forcing an examiner to either pick an identification or an elimination would mean that the examiner would have to disregard what they see in the evidentiary material. Sometimes the evidence may be deformed, damaged, not well marked, or changed from one firing to the next due to rust or other factors. These conditions would increase the difficulty of the examination and may obscure markings that would drive an examiner to either an identification or an elimination. No matter the experience level of the examiner, if the markings are not present or insufficient an inconclusive conclusion would be appropriate. This scenario is how other sections in crime laboratories use inconclusive results, for example, latent prints and DNA. Although the conclusions are used in other sections, they only appear to be considered problematic in the field of firearm comparisons.

Lastly, the majority rules solution would not work and cause an artificial error rate. As discussed in the previous section if the majority chooses inconclusive then to be right the participants would have to conclude an inconclusive result. Let’s say in this scenario, the two pieces of evidence were from the same firearm. A couple of participants had experience with such pieces of evidence that they were able to look at areas other examiners would normally miss or use lighting techniques that other examiners are not proficient in. By using their experience and techniques they were able to find markings that drew them to conclude and identification, which would be the correct answer. However, since the majority ruled that the conclusion would be inconclusive these select examiners would be marked wrong.

A real-life example of the previous scenario would be to take a survey of 100 people and ask them what the southernmost state of the United States is. Let’s assume that the majority of the participants picked either Texas or Florida then that would become the ground truth answer. Then if the researcher took this same survey to the actual participants of the study and gathered the answers and graded them based on the majority ground truth. Some participants may be more versed in geography and answer that Hawaii is the southernmost state. Technically, these participants would be right in the real world, but in the context of this study, they would be marked wrong and contribute to the error rate.

The majority rules also cause test-taking bias. Examiners may feel forced to report a conclusion as an identification or an elimination. For example, if there were a lot of markings that are drawing an examiner to an identification, but the quality and quantity of the markings did not meet their threshold for an identification they would normally conclude an inconclusive. But, by knowing that the study is graded as majority rule they may now conclude an identification because they would be biased that the majority of the participants would use those markings to make an identification.

Before finishing up this article I would like to add one more data point that was seen in multiple studies. It was found that examiners who used inconclusives more were considered more trustworthy than examiners who did not use inconclusives as often. This can be seen in the AMES study where there was an examiner who contributed significantly to the error rate but in their result did not report any inconclusives.

Final Thought

Examiners should start using one inconclusive result rather than three to become more transparent and to eliminate any bias to the jury. Outside organizations should accept inconclusive conclusions as valid as they do for other disciplines. It seems like these outside organizations are trying to artificially raise the error rates and conflict within the field by using inconclusives. People have to be able to recognize the true meaning of an inconclusive result and not equate the conclusion as an easy way out or something that is used to easily pass a study. It is a valid and important conclusion to be able to appropriately speak for the evidence.