UK National Fingerprint Collaborative Exercise 2022-23
Science & Justice, ISSN: 1355-0306, Vol: 64, Issue: 6, Page: 665-676
2024
- 1Captures
Metric Options: Counts1 Year3 YearSelecting the 1-year or 3-year option will change the metrics count to percentiles, illustrating how an article or review compares to other articles or reviews within the selected time period in the same journal. Selecting the 1-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year. Selecting the 3-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year plus the two years prior.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Metrics Details
- Captures1
- Readers1
Article Description
In 2022–2023 the Defence Science and Technology Laboratory (Dstl) designed and conducted a two-part fingerprint Collaborative Exercise (CE). The CE focussed on fingermarks contaminated in blood as they provide a complex scenario for forensic units and it involved both fingermark visualisation and comparison elements. Participants were requested to treat the exercise as a major crime submission following internal protocols and were invited to provide comments relating to how the marks were deposited (if appropriate). Overall, forensic units performed well within both parts of the exercise. The exercise highlighted the importance of conducting sequential fingermark visualisation techniques, utilising additional lighting techniques and maintaining detailed notes throughout the fingerprint examination process. The outputs from the CE provided opportunities for forensic units to learn from one another, raise the level of understanding of blood contaminated fingermarks and identify areas of improvement which can be incorporated into internal processes.
Bibliographic Details
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1355030624000935; http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.scijus.2024.09.004; http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?partnerID=HzOxMe3b&scp=85206684793&origin=inward; http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/39638486; https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S1355030624000935
Elsevier BV
Provide Feedback
Have ideas for a new metric? Would you like to see something else here?Let us know