Also known as: peer reviews · peer-reviewed · peer reviewing · peer review privilege
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A factor used by courts to assess the reliability of expert testimony consisting of the submission of an expert's theory or technique for evaluation by other qualified experts through publication or formal review. Courts treat this factor as one nonexclusive indicator of methodological soundness rather than a prerequisite for admissibility.
Preston Pratt offers an engineer to testify that a press guard design was safe based on an internal finite-element simulation and warranty spreadsheets. The simulation assumptions and data have never been shared outside the company or evaluated by other engineers. The court conducts a gatekeeping review and finds the absence of external evaluation weighs against reliability.
Penelope Price offers a tire failure analyst who bases his opinion solely on years of field inspections without any published studies or external review of his inspection protocol. The court applies the same reliability inquiry used for scientific experts and concludes that the lack of peer scrutiny contributes to exclusion of the testimony.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Pierce Patterson offers a computer scientist to testify that a facial recognition algorithm performs accurately based on a self-developed benchmarking script and informal laptop tests never shared with other researchers. The court excludes the testimony after determining that the absence of external evaluation leaves the methodology unverified.
No. Courts apply a flexible, case-specific inquiry and treat peer review as only one nonexclusive factor among several that may bear on reliability. An expert's methods may still be found reliable through other indicia even without peer review.
The gatekeeping obligation and reliability inquiry apply to all expert testimony based on scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge. Courts may consider peer review along with other appropriate factors tailored to the particular field.
Yes. Reliability may be shown through the expert's own testimony acknowledging common professional usage, although the absence of peer review remains a relevant consideration that the court weighs in its discretion.
…fide process of peer review. See Daubert , --- U.S. at ----, 113 S.Ct. at 2797 ("The fact of publication (or lack thereof) in a peer-reviewed journal thus will be ... relevant....") (emphasis added). See generally The Journal's Peer-Review Process, 321 New Eng.J.Med. 837 (1989). [^maj-7]: For instance, peer review might well have…