I'm going to go against the general concensus that seems to be forming here. In my experience, at any scale, you cannot resolve trust issues by reducing trust.

I'm going to go against the general concensus that seems to be forming here. In my experience, at any scale, you cannot resolve trust issues by reducing trust. When you reduce trust, people producing the science expect to get more scrutinized and determine they can afford to get less critical of their own work. The first thing I saw in academia is that scientists are almost never dishonest. Science is a complicated psychological process as you need hope to guide your research and you need rigor to test your hypothesis. When you let hope take a too big spot in your mind you tend to publish your partially tested hypothesis as results and when you lack it you tend to get paralized or to work on predictable work. And I saw this process multiple times. But I extremely rarely saw actual malice. Even when there was an incentive to produce bad science, you could see that the author genuinely convinced themselves that what they produced was riogorous and correct. So like in the political arena, it's a vicious circle to reduce trust. And in the contrary it's a virtuous one to increase it. When most of the science is considered genuine, it becomes a much harder hit on any scientist to get its work shown incorrect. That in turn promotes more self criticism which is the cheapeast and most effective kind of review.