Credible science has several hallmarks: peer review, transparency of methods, repeatability, and independence from conflicts of interest. Red flags include vague methods, unpublished data, or claims not supported by references.
There is a place for what is known as “grey literature”, which includes government reports, information published by associations or agencies, think tanks or independent researchers, however, these should always be verified by cross-checking with a peer-reviewed reference as well.
Practical tip: check whether findings are reported in reputable journals, whether other experts cite them, and whether the evidence can be verified.
At universities, students and researchers are often taught the acronym “CRAP” to help assess the credibility of information, it stands for:
is the information still true? Or has it become redundant or been superseded. For example, papers published in the early 1900s that claimed women were not capable of scientific thought have been completely debunked.
is the information, data or authoring organisation reliable? Does it meet the standards for credible scientific methods? Is there sufficient evidence to support conclusions?
Does the author, research team or publishing body have appropriate qualifications, experience or other valid credentials? And is the scientific information backed by credible and verifiable references?
what is the goal of the author, researcher or publisher? Is there a vested commercial interest? Is there an ideological purpose to the information? Is it attempting to sell something or obtain some kind of political advantage?
About science
How science works
Scientific methods
Research standards and credible evidence
Money and science
Science can be influenced by funding. Commercial involvement is not automatically bad, however it must be transparent. For example, food companies fund considerable research into nutrition, health and food technologies. Much of this is valuable work with wider public benefit, but readers should be alert for potential bias.
Journals usually require disclosure of funding sources because knowing who paid for research helps interpret its results appropriately.
Knowing who conducted the research adds context. Are the authors trained in the relevant field? Do they have connections to industries or advocacy groups? Transparency about authorship helps readers weigh credibility.
Science is collaborative, so contributors often include technicians, data analysts, or fieldworkers. Recognising their role highlights the collective nature of research.
