Ethical considerations for peer review in forensic neuropsychology

Douglas E Johnson-Greene, Kathleen T. Bechtold

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

3 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

The role of an expert is to assist the trier of fact in weighing evidence and reaching conclusions. Critical evaluation of opposing experts is an integral part of this process. In more recent times, cross-examination has given way to critical evaluation of opposing experts outside of the courtroom, a tactic we refer to as peer review in this paper. Though neuropsychologists frequently review the work of their colleagues, we are concerned here primarily with commentary that is at best misleading, and occasionally malicious, unethical, and unprofessional. Despite a growing trend to use experts as peer reviewers in the medicolegal arena, expectations concerning ethical and professional conduct of neuropsychologists have been absent. Enforcement of appropriate conduct is further complicated by the ambiguity of existing ethical standards and state statutes, and their limited applicability to all neuropsychologists who provide forensic services. This article provides an overview of ethical and professional issues pertaining to forensic peer review and concludes with recommendations for appropriate professional conduct.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)97-104
Number of pages8
JournalClinical Neuropsychologist
Volume16
Issue number1
DOIs
StatePublished - Jun 13 2002
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Neuropsychology
Peer Review
Ethics
Evaluation

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Psychiatry and Mental health

Cite this

Ethical considerations for peer review in forensic neuropsychology. / Johnson-Greene, Douglas E; Bechtold, Kathleen T.

In: Clinical Neuropsychologist, Vol. 16, No. 1, 13.06.2002, p. 97-104.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{1f83004a435b424d8aa08a827016284a,
title = "Ethical considerations for peer review in forensic neuropsychology",
abstract = "The role of an expert is to assist the trier of fact in weighing evidence and reaching conclusions. Critical evaluation of opposing experts is an integral part of this process. In more recent times, cross-examination has given way to critical evaluation of opposing experts outside of the courtroom, a tactic we refer to as peer review in this paper. Though neuropsychologists frequently review the work of their colleagues, we are concerned here primarily with commentary that is at best misleading, and occasionally malicious, unethical, and unprofessional. Despite a growing trend to use experts as peer reviewers in the medicolegal arena, expectations concerning ethical and professional conduct of neuropsychologists have been absent. Enforcement of appropriate conduct is further complicated by the ambiguity of existing ethical standards and state statutes, and their limited applicability to all neuropsychologists who provide forensic services. This article provides an overview of ethical and professional issues pertaining to forensic peer review and concludes with recommendations for appropriate professional conduct.",
author = "Johnson-Greene, {Douglas E} and Bechtold, {Kathleen T.}",
year = "2002",
month = "6",
day = "13",
doi = "10.1076/clin.16.1.97.8335",
language = "English",
volume = "16",
pages = "97--104",
journal = "Clinical Neuropsychologist",
issn = "1385-4046",
publisher = "Swets & Zeitlinger",
number = "1",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Ethical considerations for peer review in forensic neuropsychology

AU - Johnson-Greene, Douglas E

AU - Bechtold, Kathleen T.

PY - 2002/6/13

Y1 - 2002/6/13

N2 - The role of an expert is to assist the trier of fact in weighing evidence and reaching conclusions. Critical evaluation of opposing experts is an integral part of this process. In more recent times, cross-examination has given way to critical evaluation of opposing experts outside of the courtroom, a tactic we refer to as peer review in this paper. Though neuropsychologists frequently review the work of their colleagues, we are concerned here primarily with commentary that is at best misleading, and occasionally malicious, unethical, and unprofessional. Despite a growing trend to use experts as peer reviewers in the medicolegal arena, expectations concerning ethical and professional conduct of neuropsychologists have been absent. Enforcement of appropriate conduct is further complicated by the ambiguity of existing ethical standards and state statutes, and their limited applicability to all neuropsychologists who provide forensic services. This article provides an overview of ethical and professional issues pertaining to forensic peer review and concludes with recommendations for appropriate professional conduct.

AB - The role of an expert is to assist the trier of fact in weighing evidence and reaching conclusions. Critical evaluation of opposing experts is an integral part of this process. In more recent times, cross-examination has given way to critical evaluation of opposing experts outside of the courtroom, a tactic we refer to as peer review in this paper. Though neuropsychologists frequently review the work of their colleagues, we are concerned here primarily with commentary that is at best misleading, and occasionally malicious, unethical, and unprofessional. Despite a growing trend to use experts as peer reviewers in the medicolegal arena, expectations concerning ethical and professional conduct of neuropsychologists have been absent. Enforcement of appropriate conduct is further complicated by the ambiguity of existing ethical standards and state statutes, and their limited applicability to all neuropsychologists who provide forensic services. This article provides an overview of ethical and professional issues pertaining to forensic peer review and concludes with recommendations for appropriate professional conduct.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0036267374&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0036267374&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1076/clin.16.1.97.8335

DO - 10.1076/clin.16.1.97.8335

M3 - Article

C2 - 11992232

AN - SCOPUS:0036267374

VL - 16

SP - 97

EP - 104

JO - Clinical Neuropsychologist

JF - Clinical Neuropsychologist

SN - 1385-4046

IS - 1

ER -