Trust/untrust is not the same as true/false. Lessons learned and ethical questions on the application of untrustworthiness scales to judge individuals.

Abstract

This special paper reflects on trustworthiness and its implications for scientific medical journals and all the communities they serve: health professionals, policymakers, the public, and a specific discipline, in our case, Physical and Rehabilitation Medicine. We start from a recent episode: a paper claimed the untrustworthiness of two randomised controlled trials (RCTs) published in the European Journal of Physical and Rehabilitation Medicine based on a newly developed trustworthiness scale, used until now only in systematic reviews. This likely represents the first case of applying such a scale focusing on a single leading author. Developing a proper answer to this case led us to present some insights from the perspective of a Journal editor. We discuss the impact of false research results, why trust is needed in science and medicine, the difference between untrust and false results, the problems in judging trustworthiness, the unfortunately weak capacity of the peer review system in preventing these issues, the problems of "post-hoc" judgements and the emerging ethical issues. We conclude with some suggestions for the future based on prevention at the system level.