Ethical considerations for peer review in forensic neuropsychology.
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.
Johnson-Greene
Doug
D
Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD 21239, USA. johnsong@jhmi.edu
Bechtold
Kathleen T
KT
D004995:Ethics, Professional; D005554:Forensic Medicine; D006801:Humans; D009484:Neuropsychology / Q000193:education*; D010380:Peer Review