<p>Laypeople often struggle to interpret the provisional nature of scientific knowledge. While scientific knowledge may be widely accepted within the scientific community, it is continually subject to revision and further development as new studies are published. These characteristics of science, where findings build upon each other over time rather than being entirely replaced by new discoveries, are not always well understood by the public. This becomes particularly problematic when research process presentations that emphasize the evolving, provisional nature of scientific knowledge are perceived as less credible, reinforcing misconceptions about the integrity and nature of science. In two experimental online studies (<i>n</i>_<i>1</i> = 99; <i>n</i>_<i>2</i> = 183), we examined how different representations of the research process influence perceptions of credibility and tentativeness in the context of bat ecology, using text- and video-based presentations. We varied the explanatory presentation of scientific practices (with explanations vs. without explanations) and the portrayal of the scientist’s deliberations (canonized vs. authentic). Our findings indicate that, although scientific knowledge is perceived as provisional, the way it is communicated can affect its perceived credibility. In both studies, perceived tentativeness was negatively correlated with perceived credibility, highlighting a challenge in science communication: the need to convey the evolving nature of scientific knowledge without undermining trust in its reliability.</p>