International Journal of Evidence & Proof

Papers
(The median citation count of International Journal of Evidence & Proof is 1. The table below lists those papers that are above that threshold based on CrossRef citation counts [max. 250 papers]. The publications cover those that have been published in the past four years, i.e., from 2022-06-01 to 2026-06-01.)
ArticleCitations
Evidence, probability, and relative plausibility: A response to Aitken, Taroni, and Bozza16
Vulnerable witnesses in Chilean criminal proceedings: New developments12
Examining factors predicting sexual exploitation among victims of human trafficking11
The contemporary status of rape shield laws in India10
What do we know about ‘rape myth’ research and the claim that there is ‘overwhelming evidence’ that juries are prejudiced in rape trials?8
Intercept evidence from foreign language communications: Reliability and minimum standards in the interests of justice7
Indigenous storytelling and admissibility in common law courts: Developing the protocols for the reception theory of evidence6
Putting the ‘presumption’ back in the ‘presumption of innocence’6
A necessary evil? Polygraph interviews, SHPOs and the scope of prohibition requirements: R v David ( 4
Recognising expertise in English civil litigation: Standards, experience and reliability4
Parading the eyewitness: Caste atrocity and the Test Identification Parade4
When you say nothing at all: Invoking inferences from suspect silence in the police station4
The role of the judge in the European plea bargaining procedures: Three models compared3
Evidence, probability and relative plausibility3
Interviewers’ and intermediaries’ perceptions of problematic interview questions and their proposed solutions3
Truth, bias, and abuse of power: How Indonesia’s evidentiary threshold shapes criminal justice3
Through the looking glass: Locating litigation privilege under the Indian evidence code3
The beyond a reasonable doubt standard of proof: Juror understanding and reform2
The partial abolition of the rule in Hollington v Hewthorn in Seychelles and the admissibility of criminal2
Through the lens of legal professionals: Examining the smallest effect size of interest for eyewitness memory research2
A missing piece in the debate about naked statistical evidence2
Corrigendum to “Challenging the role of good character evidence in rape trials: Monsters, myths and mitigation”2
Non-defendant bad character and s. 100 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003: A socio-legal analysis of admissibility gateways and trial tactics2
In the pursuit of justice: An exploration of criminal procedure principles in relation to evidence in Bosnia and Herzegovina2
Fight, flight, freeze…or lie? Rethinking the principles of res gestae evidence in light of its revival2
Woolmington ’s long shadow: The dissipation of the presumption of innocence under the Indian Evidence Act, 18722
Challenging the role of good character evidence in rape trials: Monsters, myths and mitigation2
A systematic account of probabilistic fallacies in legal fact-finding1
Skirmishing toward a general theory of evidence and proof1
Why the post-identification era is long overdue: Commentary on the current controversy over forensic feature comparison as applied to forensic firearms examination1
Reframing judicial proof: Insights from dialectical argumentation theory1
The standard of proof and crime prevention: A theoretical and empirical analysis1
Functional equivalence of digital and written evidence: Aligning legal theory and judicial practice in the Saudi legal model1
The propensity to control: Non-sexual violence as probative of sexual offending in the intimate partner context1
Empowering jurors to ask questions about the expert evidence in criminal trials1
Re-thinking notions of evidence and proof for sentencing: Towards a more communitarian model1
“Unavailable evidence” in civil trials–dilemmas and implications of lawyer investigation orders in China1
Handle with care: Jury deliberation and demeanour-based assessments of witness credibility1
Likelihood ratios in psychological expert opinion, and their reception by professional judges1
0.17662286758423