A mixed DNA profile controversy revisited

Semaan et al. (J Forensic Res, 2020, 11, 453) discuss a mock case “where eight different individuals [P₁ through P₈] could not be excluded in a mixed DNA analysis. Even though … expert DNA mixture analysis software was used.” Two of these are the true donors. The LRs reported are incorrect due to the incorrect entry of propositions into LRmix Studio. This forced the software to account for most of the alleles as drop-in, resulting in LRs 60–70 orders of magnitude larger than expected. P₁, P₂, P₄, P₅, and P₈ can be manually excluded using peak heights. This has relevance when using LRmix which does not use peak heights. We extend the work using the same two reference genotypes who were the true contributors as Semaan et al. (J Forensic Res, 2020, 11, 453). We simulate three two-donor mixtures with peak heights using these two genotypes and analyze using STRmix?. For the simulated 1:1 mixture, one of the non-donors’ LRs supported him being a contributor when no conditioning was used. When considered in combination with any other potential donors (i.e., with conditioning), this non-donor was correctly eliminated. For the 3:1 mixture, all results correctly supported that the non-donors were not contributors. The low-template 4:1 mixture LRs with no conditioning showed support for all eight profiles as donors. However, the results from pair-wise conditioning showed that only the two ground truth donors had LRs supporting that they were contributors to the mixture. We recommend the use of peak heights and conditioning profiles, as this allows better sensitivity and specificity even when the persons share many alleles.     

Putting Local Associations Into their Context. Preliminary Results from a Swiss Study of Local Associations

The paper presents results from the Swiss case of the European comparative project CID (Citizenship, Involvement, Democracy). This project examines the relationship between political institutional assets and civic and political engagement in several Western and Eastern European countries. The paper seeks to investigate how civic engagement can be generated and shaped by a given institutional and political context as well as by a peculiar community size. The central hypothesis is that the context affects the character of local participation. To verify this, the papers examines two different Swiss cantons: the German speaking Canton of Bern and the French speaking Canton of Vaud. Moreover, for each canton, four local communities of different size have been selected. This research design discusses how participation is fostered by a more open political opportunity structure (the German canton), and how this combines with the size of the community.     

Letter to the editor: Commentary on “Strategic choice in linear sequential unmasking,Roger Koppl,Science & Justice,https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scijus.2018.10.010”

This letter to the Editor comments on the paper ‘Strategic choice in linear sequential unmasking’ by Roger Koppl (Science & Justice, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scijus.2018.10.010).     

Publishing while editor: Transparency and behaviour in public administration journals

Journal editors serve as gatekeepers of knowledge, a role critical to preserving the quality and standards of good research. Some scholars have questioned whether editors have taken advantage of their position to publish their own work. To understand the extent to which editors of public administration journals self-publish, we examined publishing patterns over a 20-year period. We collected the names of editors from the mastheads of 13 generalist public administration journals from 1997 to 2016 and used data indexed from Web of Science to look at articles published in those journals during the same time. We found that while self-publishing behaviour is not common across the entire field, it is a trend for certain journals and individuals. We also found the practice of self-publishing is influenced by whether an individual served in a primary editorial role (e.g., editor-in-chief), length of editorial service, and overall scholarly productivity. We discuss appropriateness and ethical implications of the practice.