An essential element of compliance with ethical standards in scientific research is the reporting of a verifiable declaration of ethical approval and, when human subjects are involved - informed consent, in published works. The level of reporting of ethical permission for research published in forensic and investigative sciences journals has not been explored to date. Hence, we examined the reporting of ethical approval and informed consent in original research utilising human or animal subjects published in six forensic science journals from 2010 to 2019. We identified 10,192 articles and retained 3010 that satisfied the inclusion criteria of utilising human (91.2%), or animal (7.0%) or both (1.8%) subjects or tissues in experiments. Just over a third (1079/3010) of all studies declared obtaining ethical approval, with 927 (85.9%) of those indicating the name of the ethical committee, but only 392 (36%) provided an approval code. Furthermore, while consent was said to have been sought in 527 (17.5%) of studies, only 155 of those reported that written informed consent was obtained, eleven stated oral (verbal) consent, while the remaining 357 studies (67.7%) did not report the process used to gain consent. Ethical approval reporting rates differed between different research types, availability of financial support and whether authors were affiliated to academia or industry. The results demonstrate a low level of declaration of ethical approval and informed consent in forensic science research and publication, requiring urgent rectification. We support the adoption of the model proposed by Forensic Science International: Genetics as baseline recommendations to facilitate consistent nomenclature, transparency, and standard of ethical reporting in forensic science.