Trust in Scientists and Conspiracy Beliefs Predict Online Misinformation Susceptibility and Fake News Detection: A Cross-Sectional Study in Greece

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This is a very interesting and relevant study on public perceptions and trust in science and how that correlates with the ability to discern from fake news. The overall theoretical framework needs a bit more cohesion, and the author (s) is/are also missing some interesting papers in this field. Among them, I would suggest reading and adding:

Alaqil, Fisal M., Abdullah Alhuntushi, and Jairo Lugo-Ocando. "Problems and issues with social media influencers performing science news reporting in the Arab world." Humanities and Social Sciences Communications 13, no. 1 (2026): 141.

Katsiroumpa, Aglaia, et al. "Trust in scientists and conspiracy beliefs predict online misinformation susceptibility and fake news detection: a cross-sectional study in Greece." medRxiv(2025): 2025-11.

Kalogeropoulos, Antonis, Lamprini Rori, and Dimitra Dimitrakopoulou. "‘Social Media Help Me Distinguish between Truth and Lies’: News Consumption in the Polarised and Low-trust Media Landscape of Greece." South European Society and Politics26, no. 1 (2021): 109-132.

Rubin, A., Brondi, S., & Pellegrini, G. (2023). Should I trust or should I go? How people perceive and assess the quality of science communication to avoid fake news: A. Rubin et al. Quality & Quantity, 57(5), 4455-4476.

Scheufele, Dietram A., and Nicole M. Krause. "Science audiences, misinformation, and fake news." Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences116, no. 16 (2019): 7662-7669.

The author (s) indicate “that lower trust in scientists is associated with greater 323 misinformation susceptibility and reduced ability to detect fake news”. Why is it not the other way around? The statistical test applied allows for both interpretations. Can you substantiate better this conclusion with further discussion.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

 

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript presents a timely and relevant investigation into the interplay between trust in scientists, conspiracy mentality, and susceptibility to online misinformation, providing a valuable contribution by focusing on the previously under-researched Greek context. The study is methodologically sound, adhering to the STROBE reporting guidelines and utilizing a sample size that exceeds the requirements of the preliminary power analysis; however, a minor revision is recommended to address several internal inconsistencies and to refine the interpretation of the results. Specifically, there is a significant discrepancy between the narrative in Section 3.4 and the data presented in Table 5, where the text incorrectly identifies a significant multivariable association between the Trust in Scientists Scale (TISS) and fake news detection, while the table reports a non-significant p-value of 0.094, contrasting with the high significance found for "trust in websites" (p < 0.001). It is essential that the authors resolve this contradiction and ensure that the discussion, abstract, and conclusions accurately reflect the statistical findings. Additionally, the manuscript would benefit from a more comprehensive discussion regarding the gender imbalance of the sample,comprised of 71.3% women,and its potential impact on the generalizability of the findings, alongside a more robust justification for the decision to utilize only the integrity subscale of the TISS. Finally, a thorough linguistic review to harmonize scientific terminology and eliminate minor repetitions in the discussion section will ensure the manuscript is suitable for publication.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

 

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The title clearly expresses what the manuscript is about. It contains the keywords necessary to make it easy to find for readers in the field. 

The abstract provides a brief and clear presentation of the study, including the objectives, main results, and conclusions. The text does not contain unnecessary information, excessive jargon, or undefined acronyms. The conclusions are also presented in a balanced manner and do not exaggerate the applicability or potential impact of the results. However, it would be useful to clarify the methodology, specifically explaining in one sentence that a questionnaire was used to collect responses.
The introduction clearly presents the current state of research in the field, highlights the limitations of existing knowledge, and explains the manuscript's contribution to the literature and its potential impact. The purpose of the paper is also clearly defined and maintained consistently throughout the manuscript.
The methodology and research design are explained very concisely.
The results are accurate.
The discussion and conclusion sections are well structured and logically explain the results obtained. The authors compare their findings with existing results in the literature and discuss their implications for policy, society, and future research directions.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

 

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf