Saw mark research is focused on collecting data on variation found in microscopic features of cut bone. Data are then applied to saw blade and tooth characteristics of size, set, shape, and power. This information is used to indicate saw class, subclass, or type. The narrowing of the field of possible tools that could have potentially been used in a crime makes saw mark characteristics a valuable "tool" for the forensic examiner. Unfortunately, a standard methodology for saw mark analysis is lacking, and the field is hindered by numerous misconceptions.

1. First and foremost, there is a belief that saws—by the action of sawing—destroys any diagnostic features that could be used to identify a class of, or a specific, saw. Not only is this incorrect, but it has greatly diminished saw mark analysis in a forensic setting and has led to its abandonment as a source of potential evidence. Tool mark examiners confronted with analysis problems regarding saw marks, often comment that there is a lack research in the field.

2. The second misconception is that diagnostic marks on bone are created only when the blade is worn or damaged; thereby resulting in unique individualizing characteristics. While the focus upon these “defects” is common, all blades leave diagnostic marks as they cut, regardless of wear. The correct interpretation of these characteristics can lead to a valuable identification of classes of saws and knives. In addition, correctly identifying the class of tool used (i.e., hacksaw, serrated knife, etc.) is useful for narrowing down the search for the suspected weapon or tool. Therefore, the assumption that a comparison is only necessary once the individual tool is found is incorrect, as an accurate identification of a class of tool—as indicated by tool mark features—can direct the investigator to sub-classifications, such as wavy set hacksaw, large toothed serrated knife.

3. The lack of proper equipment used to analyze saw toolmarks, whether it is too little or too much magnification has prompted another common misconception amongst anthropologists. The problem is that low grade dissecting microscopes, commonly found in anthropology departments, are inadequate for toolmark examination. Most often, these microscopes do not permit the entire bone to be examined at one time. SEM is unnecessary for accurate saw mark analysis in bone and in most cases has been shown to hinder the examination.

4. The fourth misconception is that a naked eye examination of a cut bone surface can accurately indicate tool class. Many anthropologists are misled by the erroneous concept that all one has to do is to compare the cut surface of bone with the residual kerfs in order to classify the tool responsible for creating the defect. Unfortunately, the overall pattern one observes on the cut surfaces of bone is of little use in saw mark analysis.