["\nAbstract\nGiven the inherent difficulties in validating the comparison question polygraph test (CQT) by using a wide range of the conventional two categories of studies—field and laboratory— (NRC ‐ The polygraph and lie detection, 2003), the innovative method presented by Ginton (Psychology, Crime & Law, 2013, 19, pp. 577–594), has been considered to be a breakthrough (Raskin & Kircher, 2014, Validity of polygraph techniques and decision methods. p. 82). In their recent review of the current status of polygraph validity, Iacono and Ben‐Shakhar (Law & Human Behavior, 2019, 43, pp. 86–98), dedicated a significant portion of their article to scrutinising that novel approach. They did applaud Ginton's innovation for the development of the new methods but criticised its outcomes to the point that nullified any contributions it might have had in dealing with the long‐lasting controversy regarding the CQT validity. The present response to that critique examines their argumentations in dismissing Ginton's study point by point, indicating reliance on some speculations that had nothing to do with reality and a profound misunderstanding or misinterpreting of the data.\n", "Journal of Investigative Psychology and Offender Profiling, Volume 17, Issue 3, Page 296-309, October 2020. "]