Yes. Trust in researchers has fallen and become highly politicalised. Trust in individual research articles is an additional issue and has become strained with the rise of AI, failing peer review and paper mills.

Research misconduct, lack of transparency in methods and data, perceived conflicts of interest or bias, unreliable results and political or commercial influence are all key factors contributing to declining trust in research.

The majority of research is publicly funded and should be accountable to the public. This should be achieved through; honest and transparent reporting of results, ethical conduct throughout the research process, clear communication about potential risks and benefits, and accountability for any errors or misconduct

Undisclosed financial or personal interests can undermine the objectivity of research. Transparent disclosure is crucial for maintaining credibility and public trust.

Trust is the foundation of effective scientific progress. It enables collaboration among researchers, encourages public participation, and ensures that findings are accepted and used to inform policy and practice.

All stakeholders have a responsibility to ensure research is trustworthy. Funders & institutions must ensure researchers are held accountable, researchers must engage transparently and publishers must ensure swift removal of fraudulent research articles.

Being trusted means enjoying confidence from others, while being trustworthy means consistently acting with integrity and deserving that confidence. Sustainable trust in research relies on a culture of trustworthiness, not just public perception.

For some fields and contexts, reproducibility can improve trustworthiness of findings, for example through replicable code, detailed methods and annotated data in public repositories.

However, in the life sciences general reproducibility (for example of findings) has the potential to undermine trust and this should not be the goal.

Uphold integrity and honesty in all research practices, be transparent about methods, data, and funding sources, engage in open peer review, disclose conflicts of interest,and communicate findings clearly and responsibly to the public – including uncertainty and limitations.

There is some data to suggest that specific fields (such as psychology) may have issues with reproducibility. However, claims of a “crisis” or suggestions that these issues are across all fields are not based on evidence. For example, a recent study investigating reproducibility in the Drosophila research field found that the field is highly reliable and reproducible^1,2 . Studies on reproducibility do however highlight issues with reporting, collaboration and lack of details in methods which are all important issues to address.