Frequently Asked Questions
There are a great number of ways that JuriLytics peer reviews can make a difference in your cases. These include, but are not limited to, the following:
Draft Report Review (DR2)
Your expert just finished the first draft of her report. How can you tell if she overlooked a critical issue or a helpful scientific development? What if the report gets excluded? You hire your experts because they produce excellent work, but they themselves aren not perfect. Catch the errors early, and your clients will thank you for it.
In science, mistakes and oversights are caught by peer review. At JuriLytics, these peers are the best researchers in the field - they may even be cited by your experts. As Nature editor Charles Jennings explained: "My experience as a Nature editor was that most papers went through considerable change (not always voluntary on the authors" part!) between submission and acceptance..." Even Einstein was saved embarrassment after a peer reviewer caught a mistake in his work. Experts who do not want peer review probably should not be working on your cases.
Errors aside, peer review can help you sharpen your own arguments and anticipate your opponent"s arguments. Mock trials help you sharpen your legal arguments. JuriLytics will help you sharpen your science.
Final Report Review (FR2)
No matter how distinguished your experts, they cannot provide the answers that judges most want to hear. In short, judges need to know whether the methods and principles underlying the parties’ experts accord with accepted scientific research standards (i.e., Daubert) or whether the scientific opinions or techniques are generally accepted among scientists (Daubert and Frye).
Party experts are hired because their testimony aligns with the litigating position of the party paying the bills. Such experts may or may not be “hired guns,” but many judges believe them to be just that. You could hire 2, 3, 10, or 100 experts and they would not be able to answer the one question that every judge must ask. Are the party experts testifying to good science?
JuriLytics’ reviewers, in contrast, provide an unbiased and neutral assessment of the bases for the disputed scientific opinion as well as what the consensus view is from the respective field.
JuriLytics reviews are not just game changers, they fundamentally alter the playing field.
Using state-of-the-art publication analytics, JuriLytics will compile a list of 15-20 potential scientists/academics that are the most dominant authorities in the relevant technical areas of the target expert report.
Our search methodology factors in a reviewer"s publication count, citation record, and their co-authorship tendencies. As an additional check, JuriLytics will sometimes ask editors of prestigious scientific journals to select candidates to avoid the appearance of selection bias.
Then, JuriLytics vets each candidate for conflicts of interest and suitability. Our methodology is informed by standards used before in other litigation and screens for financial interests, conflicting relationships, prior testimony, and public statements.
Under virtually all evidence codes, judges are obligated to evaluate the threshold admissibility of proffered expert evidence. Under both Federal Rule of Evidence 702 (and Daubert) and most State codes, this requires judges to either evaluate the reliability and validity of the scientific basis for the evidence or to check whether the scientific opinion or technique offered in court is accepted in the field from which it comes.
JuriLytics reviews can be used by courts to answer the questions that judges are obligated to answer.