[wumpus]

Scientific credibility is a combination of the quality of your current paper as evaluated by peer review and replication, and the same for your previous work.

Notice the lack of "correct credentials" in my sentence.

Just a few decades ago it was the case the a majority of comets, asteroids, and supernovae were discovered by amateur astronomers -- and their work is taken very seriously by professionals. You can still report such discoveries no matter what credentials you have.

p.s. my hobby is dance history and I can dance the Minuet, hope that doesn't disqualify my opinion in your eyes.

[robbedpeter]

Scientific credibility is called reproducibility. If it's not reproducible, it's not credible, and that's got nothing to do with individual scientists, or the quality of their previous work. Peer review, as she is practiced, is an unnecessary social affectation and an increasingly onerous barrier to progress.

Journals are rent extractors targeting the "science news" demographic. Curation is the justification for their involvement, but in practice it amounts to politicized gatekeeping for profit.

Real science communication looks like scihub - the firehose torrent in which the curation is done by individuals seeking information separate from any "proper" authority.