Publication rates of abstracts presented at the annual scientific meetings held by the American Academy of Forensic Sciences in 2011 and 2016

Prior research evaluating the papers presented in forensic sciences in international meetings is scant. This study determines the possible predictions concerning publications by comparing the publication rates, publication years, and presentation types, time until publication, participating countries, and criteria of the published journals in the American Academy of Forensic Sciences (AAFS). The publication rates of abstracts presented at scientific meetings of AAFS, a prestigious forensic science organization, along with the aforementioned components and the extent of their contribution in 2011 and 2016 were investigated. The abstracts presented at the AAFS meetings in 2011 and 2016 were reviewed retrospectively within the scope of this study. The Web of Science, PubMed, Scopus, Science Direct, and Google Scholar databases were searched using a specified process that included the title, first and last author surnames, and keywords. Results revealed that approximately 21% and 24% of the papers presented at the 2011 and 2016 AAFS meetings, respectively, were published. Considering the publication rates of abstracts according to sections, the publication rates for the 2011 AAFS meeting ranged from 4% (questioned documents) to 31% (anthropology) and from 5% (questioned documents) to 32% (pathology/biology), on average, for the 2016 AAFS meeting. It was determined that the papers were largely published in the Journal of Forensic Sciences for both annual scientific meetings. Future studies should concentrate on the obstacles to the publication of papers presented at such prestigious organizations and strategies to facilitate the publication process such that they do not lose their value over time.     

A global and historical exploration: Legislative reform in Muslim family laws in Muslim-majority versus Muslim-minority countries

Thirty-five Muslim-majority and 18 Muslim-minority countries formally integrate Muslim Family Laws (MFLs) into their legal systems and enforce them through state courts. Both Muslim-majority and Muslim-minority governments have undertaken legislative reforms to alleviate the effects of religious laws on fundamental human rights, increase accountability and accessibility, and strengthen the rule of law within their MFL systems. Extant literature is silent on whether MFLs are more reformed or more human rights and the rule of law compliant in Muslim-majority or Muslim-minority countries. Utilizing a novel methodological tool, the MFL Index, this exploratory article surveys cross-national and historical trends in MFL reform (1946–2016). It shows that Muslim-majority and -minority governments have opted for different forms of legislative reform. Muslim-majority countries favored substantive reform, while Muslim-minority states prioritized exit reforms. The type and extent of reform were strongly associated with colonial heritage, secularism, women's activism, ethnoreligious diversity, and prevailing multicultural arrangements. These findings have implications for studying multicultural theory, human/women's rights, and democratization in the Muslim world and beyond.