How replicated has the study been? Even a fully credible researcher should not be trusted when their research has not been replicated due to just how prevalent replication issues are in psychology.
People like to rag on psychology for this, but the same replicability problem affects a lot of fields. Some of it is sloppiness (or straight-out fraud, which is more likely here) but it's also just that science is hard!
At least in physics you don't see nearly the level of trust until a study have been replicated and confirmed. You might see a few news articles about someone's cold fusion reactor, but there is far more skepticism and scientists in related fields are much quicker to not trust it unless it has independent replication.
Soft sciences don't seem to have a similar culture.
You’re probably right that half-baked psych and biomedical articles show up in the media more, but I think it’s a mistake to extrapolate from that to the actual work going on in the field.
