Assuming the widespread presence of blatant fraud in the absence of evidence is (at least to my mind) the inverse of blind worship. There is no difference in validity between an unfounded assumption of misdeed or virtue.

By "trustworthy" I mean nothing more than the same presumption of innocence absent evidence to the contrary that you extend at the grocery store when you assume that the food you're purchasing isn't poisoned or rotten or etc. That doesn't mean the published results are reproducible, the measurements without (unintentional) error, or the conclusions logically sound. Merely that there isn't an active attempt being made to deceive or otherwise knowingly mislead the reader to the advantage of the author.

What I'm describing is an incredibly low bar with broad applicability that society generally requires in order to function.