The following are the criteria considered for admission of cases into the Daubert Tracker database.

• The expert was deemed not qualified (unqualified).
• The expert's methods were questionable, suspicious, not valid (invalid), lacking or inadequate.
• The expert was not credible (incredible) or believable (unbelievable).
• The testimony was outside the scope of the expertise of the expert.
• The testimony was not relevant (irrelevant).
• The testimony was not reliable (unreliable).
• The testimony was flawed.
• The expert's methods were not scientific (unscientific).
• The testimony was speculative.
• The expert was deemed not competent, incompetent.
• The testimony was questionable.
• The testimony was predicated on an improper (or was lacking) foundation, basis or grounds.
• The testimony was based on insufficient evidence, false assumptions or evidence not in the record.
• The expert drew conclusions not supported by the evidence.
• The testimony of the expert was impeached.
• The testimony was based on methods which were unscientific (not scientific, junk science).
• The testimony would not assist the trier of fact.
• The testimony was, amounted to or drew a legal conclusion.
• The testimony was used to support a motion for summary judgment and the motion was granted/ denied.
• There were two conflicting expert testimonies and the case was decided in the favor of one party (thereby implying that one expert's testimony was given more weight than another's).
• The testimony or opinion was conclusory.
• Any other assessment of the expert or his/her testimony which reflects on or affects the assessment of the overall qualifications and credibility of the expert – either in a good or a bad way, particularly critical comments of any kind by the judge who wrote the opinion (even if there was no formal attempt to exclude or limit the testimony of the expert on the part of one of the attorneys.