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 2022-08-01 to 2026-08-01.)
ArticleCitations
Evidence, probability, and relative plausibility: A response to Aitken, Taroni, and Bozza18
Vulnerable witnesses in Chilean criminal proceedings: New developments12
The contemporary status of rape shield laws in India10
Examining factors predicting sexual exploitation among victims of human trafficking10
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
Putting the ‘presumption’ back in the ‘presumption of innocence’6
Indigenous storytelling and admissibility in common law courts: Developing the protocols for the reception theory of evidence5
Interviewers’ and intermediaries’ perceptions of problematic interview questions and their proposed solutions4
Parading the eyewitness: Caste atrocity and the Test Identification Parade4
Recognising expertise in English civil litigation: Standards, experience and reliability4
A necessary evil? Polygraph interviews, SHPOs and the scope of prohibition requirements: R v David ( 4
Through the looking glass: Locating litigation privilege under the Indian evidence code3
Fight, flight, freeze…or lie? Rethinking the principles of res gestae evidence in light of its revival3
Truth, bias, and abuse of power: How Indonesia’s evidentiary threshold shapes criminal justice3
The role of the judge in the European plea bargaining procedures: Three models compared3
A missing piece in the debate about naked statistical evidence3
“Unavailable evidence” in civil trials–dilemmas and implications of lawyer investigation orders in China2
Woolmington ’s long shadow: The dissipation of the presumption of innocence under the Indian Evidence Act, 18722
The partial abolition of the rule in Hollington v Hewthorn in Seychelles and the admissibility of criminal2
Non-defendant bad character and s. 100 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003: A socio-legal analysis of admissibility gateways and trial tactics2
Corrigendum to “Challenging the role of good character evidence in rape trials: Monsters, myths and mitigation”2
In the pursuit of justice: An exploration of criminal procedure principles in relation to evidence in Bosnia and Herzegovina2
Through the lens of legal professionals: Examining the smallest effect size of interest for eyewitness memory research2
Challenging the role of good character evidence in rape trials: Monsters, myths and mitigation2
Skirmishing toward a general theory of evidence and proof1
Functional equivalence of digital and written evidence: Aligning legal theory and judicial practice in the Saudi legal model1
‘Materially true?’: The nexus of human rights violations, due process rights and admissibility of forced confessions in the Malawi criminal justice system1
A systematic account of probabilistic fallacies in legal fact-finding1
The propensity to control: Non-sexual violence as probative of sexual offending in the intimate partner context1
Why the post-identification era is long overdue: Commentary on the current controversy over forensic feature comparison as applied to forensic firearms examination1
Re-thinking notions of evidence and proof for sentencing: Towards a more communitarian model1
Whether chatbot-generated opinion can be trusted: Application of the hearsay rule of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 and inspiration for China's evidence law reform1
The standard of proof and crime prevention: A theoretical and empirical analysis1
Handle with care: Jury deliberation and demeanour-based assessments of witness credibility1
Reframing judicial proof: Insights from dialectical argumentation theory1
Empowering jurors to ask questions about the expert evidence in criminal trials1
Likelihood ratios in psychological expert opinion, and their reception by professional judges1
0.049143075942993