Also known as: peer-reviewed publication · peer review · publication · Daubert factor
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A factor courts consider when assessing the reliability of scientific expert testimony. A theory or technique that has undergone peer review and appeared in a publication demonstrates scrutiny by the relevant scientific community. Courts may weigh this factor along with testing, error rates, and general acceptance to decide whether the testimony rests on reliable methodology.
Dr. Elena Voss offered expert testimony that a chemical compound caused the plaintiff's injury. She relied on a theory that had been tested, published in a peer-reviewed journal, and generally accepted. The court admitted the testimony after finding the publication factor supported reliability under Daubert.
Dr. Marcus Hale testified that a drug caused birth defects. His methodology had appeared in a peer-reviewed journal but lacked independent testing data. The court excluded the testimony because the publication factor alone could not overcome the absence of other Daubert reliability indicators.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Engineer Lena Soto testified that a manufacturing process was defective. She cited her own peer-reviewed article on the same technique. The court treated the publication as one positive Daubert factor supporting admissibility of her opinion.
Toxicologist Raj Patel offered an opinion on causation that rested on a novel technique. Although the method had not been peer-reviewed or published, other Daubert factors were strong. The court admitted the testimony after weighing all reliability considerations.
Biologist Nora Quinn testified that exposure to a solvent caused neurological damage. Her theory had undergone peer review and appeared in two publications. The court found this factor weighed in favor of reliability and admitted the testimony.
Chemist Theo Grant testified on the cause of an explosion using an untested hypothesis. No peer-reviewed publication supported the method. The court excluded the testimony, holding that the missing publication factor undermined reliability under Daubert.
Courts treat peer review and publication as one non-dispositive factor among several when deciding whether expert testimony rests on reliable scientific methodology. Publication signals that the theory or technique has been exposed to scrutiny by others in the field.
Supporting sources
Yes. The absence of peer review and publication does not automatically disqualify testimony. Courts may still find reliability through other factors such as testing, known error rates, or general acceptance.
Supporting sources
No. Publication is only one factor. Courts retain gatekeeping responsibility and may exclude testimony if other reliability indicators are weak or if the publication itself does not establish sound methodology.
Supporting sources
…to that court. The District Court must conduct the in camera inspection with scrupulous protection against release or publication of material not probably admissible and relevant to the issues of the trial. The court has a heavy responsibility to ensure that presidential conversations irrelevant to or inadmissible in…