<p>In this paper, I argue that public trust in science depends not only on the quality of its outputs but also on perceptions of the character and competence of those who control admittance to and endorsements from its institutions–the gatekeepers. Scientific gatekeeping is meant to preserve the value of science by filtering out bad work and elevating good work. But when gatekeepers appear arrogant, biased, or self-serving, the public reasonably infers that the process itself is compromised—even if the outcomes are sound. Because laypeople often lack access to the details of scientific evaluation, they rely on the behavior of gatekeepers as a proxy for institutional integrity. The paper shows how this reliance can erode trust in science, especially when gatekeeping is visibly inconsistent with the values science is thought to embody. The solution is not just procedural reform, but cultural reform—institutions must better incentivize virtuous behavior and more effectively penalize its absence to preserve science’s legitimacy.</p>