Trust within science. The replication crisis and the call for more transparent research Although public trust in science appears to remain strong, among scientists themselves it is under pressure. In particular in the social and life sciences, doubts have emerged about the validity of a substantial proportion of published research findings. Common but questionable practices in scientific research are an important cause of this so-called replication crisis. There are also concerns about the rise of online predatory journals and fake articles produced in paper mills. These developments are fueled by an academic culture with strong incentives to publish quickly, frequently, and in a way that attracts attention. Improving research practices requires greater transparency in the design, implementation, reporting, and evaluation of scientific research. The open science movement is taking various initiatives to this end. Although the problems identified and the proposed remedies receive most attention in the context of quantitative research, they are also relevant to qualitative research.

Most Dutch citizens continue to have trust in science How much trust do Dutch citizens have in science? Since 2012, roughly every three years, the Rathenau Instituut has asked a large representative group of Dutch citizens how much trust they have in science and in various aspects of science. In this edition the authors observe that trust in science remains high with an average of 7.5 on a scale from 1 to 10. Beneath this average, however, they see shifts taking place: the group of people with high levels of trust has increased, but so has the group with low levels of trust. The authors see correlations between trust in science and personal factors such as education level, political orientation and spirituality. Moreover, trust in science varies by aspect of science and among research topics. These results are important for scientists, journalists, policy makers and politicians.

DJI and science: a sustainable connection with friction In this article, the authors examine the relationship between the Custodial Institutions Agency (DJI) and the academic community. How do the two collaborate, and is this collaboration functioning as intended? To what extent does scientific knowledge inform policy and practice – and if it does not, what explains this gap? After briefly outlining the societal mission of DJI, the authors describe how the collaboration between DJI and the scientific community is organized and the principles on which it is based. They discuss the current state of this collaboration and the various ways in which cooperation takes shape, and look back on 25 years of partnership: what has been achieved, and what concerns remain?

Trust in scientific knowledge: knowledge bubbles and the desirability of collective reflexivity In research, distrust towards institutions such as universities and science is linked to online knowledge bubbles and echo chambers. However, the argument in this article is that this distrust is partly due to the existence of such bubbles within scientific circles themselves. The author argues that in the security domain and particularly in extremism studies, these scientific knowledge bubbles bring various forms of harm: by fueling distrust towards science, by contributing to extremism, and by causing harm to individuals labeled as a security problem. The author contends that collective reflexivity is necessary to prevent this harm and to stretch knowledge bubbles.

Science and trust = knowledge and rule of law This opinion article in this special issue on ‘Trust in science’ expresses concerns about the way that science is currently being treated, and in particular about the fact that science is no longer trusted unquestioningly (how science is used by others). These concerns are shared by and related to the position of the WODC as knowledge institute for the rule of law, and therefore particularly to the question of what influence a lack of trust in (the use of) science could have on the use of knowledge and on the rule of law. That influence appears to be mainly negative, although there are also some tiny rays of hope.

Femicide as a criminal law phenomenon: a legal solution for a cultural problem? Since the Istanbul Convention entered into force in 2016 in the Netherlands, legal and policy focus on gender-based violence – including femicide – has intensified. While generally femicide is defined as ‘the killings of females because they are female’, there is no uniform legal definition. Originating in feminist sociology, the term highlights systemic gender power imbalances and historically entrenched impunity. Nevertheless, some countries (mostly in Latin America) have enacted femicide laws. The Netherlands has not formalized a legal definition yet, but policy awareness is slowly influencing courts and multi-agency responses. This article discusses the added value of defining femicide in Dutch criminal law.

Coercive control in relation to femicide Femicide in this article refers to the killing of a woman by her (male) partner or ex-partner. Often, there is a pattern of coercive control underlying this. This article focuses on the period leading up to the killing, examining violence patterns with an emphasis on coercive control, also referred to as intimate terrorism. Although intimate terrorism often does not lead to femicide, it is important to be knowledgeable about it, along with knowledge of risk factors associated with femicide and the prior phases leading to murder in order to prevent femicide. Anyone can encounter signals indicating a dangerous relationship, and increased knowledge among professionals and citizens is necessary to combat serious life-threatening violence.

Recognition without impact. On the limited added value of the action plan ‘Stop Femicide!’ This article evaluates the contribution of the action plan ‘Stop Femicide!’ (2024). The authors assess the policy through a previously developed critical framework, questioning the usefulness of separate femicide policy. ‘Contribution’ is understood in the article as innovative measures that effectively support the policy’s stated goals. The analysis reveals that ‘Stop Femicide!’ focuses exclusively on fatal (ex-)partner and familial violence, thereby excluding other forms of femicide, lacks substantive innovative measures or depth and fails to elaborate on key preventive aspects, such as the so-called ‘red flags’. A notable strength is the explicit recognition of femicide as a gender-related issue, meeting long-standing demands from victims and survivors of femicide. However, the promised integrated approach and concrete preventive strategies are absent. As a result, ‘Stop Femicide!’ appears more symbolic than substantively innovative, raising doubts about its status as a distinct and effective prevention policy initiative.

Femicide in the Netherlands: an empirical overview In recent years femicide has received increased public and academic attention, driven by #MeToo and advocacy efforts. Despite growing usage of the term, there is limited consensus on its definition and empirical application. This article presents the first findings from the Femicide Monitor, a new Dutch database of female homicide cases, based on police, legal, and media sources. It offers a descriptive analysis of patterns in victims, perpetrators, and contexts. The study addresses data gaps in the Netherlands and contributes to international discussions on gender-based killings by providing an empirical foundation for further research.