We might indicate our credentials, memberships, and research experience when necessary 1) at the bottom or top of any Hub or 2) in our HubPages Profiles. Either would work well, I think. In fact, I always look at HP Profiles for credentials when reading Hubs in topics like medicine, dentistry, and psychology, other sciences, and some other subjects.
Journalists can perform a meta-analysis of the existing work in a topic, just as research scientists can accomplish, and write conclusions and opinions about applications and impact for the future. My concern is with any article that presents false, harmful, or old-wive's-tale information as medical/dental or psychological/psychiatric truth; and with any article that constitutes practice of medicine/psychology without a license - including veterinary medicine. My medical/psych training makes me cringe at all this.
Firsthand accounts of diagnoses, treatments, and their outcomes by people undergoing those treatments or by those watching their loved ones manage these conditions - and even by reporters doing in depth interviews - are good to see.
Other articles everywhere online are not very good - particularly articles written today that copy information from the APA's old DSM-IV-TR, with the writers not realizing that the DSM-5 has been active for months, then misusing, misinterpreting, or misapplying the copied information further than it's being outdated. Unfortunately, some non-credentialed pop-psych writers have set a bad precedent by completely making up additional disease titles and of trying to diagnose people. Then a portion of readers accept these writers' articles as truth and attempt to diagnose family, friends, and acquaintances - or treat themselves, with bad results. This phenomenon could make a good sit-com if people weren't being hurt by it. .