"We suggest that professional associations face a conflict between a logic that prioritises preserving the integrity of a disciplinary field, and another logic that emphasises the importance of preserving the reputation of that field... https://twitter.com/ZUCKERKJ/status/1324349927712063492

...While these logics are not mutually exclusive, there is often a tension between them. Some professional associations seem to favour a logic of preserving a field’s integrity to avoid losing legitimacy...

...Yet, steps to preserve a field’s integrity can often involve unwelcome publicity and imperil legitimacy. This risk is particularly acute if an investigation draws attention to dubious practices on the part of pioneering figures who have a prominent public profile."

"we frame our analysis by applying the following three institutional logics to the institutional field of medical science....

...Classical medical logic

This ‘focuses on patient care and is embodied in the Hippocratic Oath (“First do no harm”) which requires physicians to uphold a basic ethical standard and to act accordingly’..medical logic is most relevant to physicians...

... it also encompasses the activities of researchers who address issues of physical and mental health. In addition, this logic applies to the professional associations who have a role in legitimising the activities of clinicians and biomedical researchers."

"Academic logic embodies the view that ‘truth-claims, whatever their source, are to be subjected to pre-established impersonal criteria’ and that ‘truth-claims’ should prevail over the reputation of any individual, however distinguished."

"Market-oriented logic

This prioritises ‘external performance and indicators’ such as publication scores, funding success and ‘brand and image’. It encourages a cynical cost benefit calculus...

...In light of integrity/reputation issues, journals, professional associations and universities may tend to act only when the likely reputational cost/benefit of doing nothing outweighs the likely reputational cost/benefit of conducting some sort of inquiry or review...

...As more parts of the academy become corporatised, commodified, ranked, audited and listed in numerous league tables, the influence of this logic has grown throughout universities."

"we highlight the tension between preserving the integrity of the field of psychology and preserving the reputation of that field. We draw particular attention to the subsidiary tension between an academic logic and a market-oriented logic."

"The roles that various professional bodies, scholarly academies, universities and publishers should play in dealing with research misconduct are unclear. Each of these bodies seems to assume that the other should act, intends to act, or will eventually act...

...This leads to a situation of ‘diffused responsibility’ that encourages professional societies to ‘pass the buck’ rather than engage willingly and substantively with the problems concerned."

"The failure of professional bodies to act discourages the will of others to intervene even more. Such failure may be compounded by adherence to a market-oriented institutional logic...

...The latter logic will often conflict with pressures to confront allegations of research misconduct that arise from the exercise of classical medical logic and/or an academic logic."

The above thread is quotes from the paper 'Research misconduct complaints and institutional logics: The case of Hans Eysenck and the British Psychological Society' https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1359105320963542

"Eysenck: "Scientists have extremely high motivation to succeed in discovering the truth; their finest and most original discoveries are rejected by the vulgar mediocrities filling the ranks of orthodoxy...

...They are convinced that they have found the right answer. . .The figures do not quite fit, so why not fudge them a little bit to confound the infidels and unbelievers?...

... Usually the genius is right, of course (if he were not, we should not regard him as a genius), and we may in retrospect excuse his childish games, but clearly this cannot be regarded as license for non-geniuses who foist their absurd beliefs on us."...

...This comes perilously close to justifying research misconduct on the part of ‘geniuses’."

"If journals fear reputational damage from publishing retractions, it suggests that a market-oriented institutional logic has taken precedence over classical medical logic and academic logic..to prioritise public relations concerns over..scholarly integrity and for public health"

"When manifest failings have been identified, it is negligent to allow publications to remain in the scientific literature, where they can continue to influence researchers, be included in meta-analyses (Chida et al., 2008; Shields et al., 2020), and undermine public health...

...This is not primarily a question of establishing guilt or innocence but of determining the integrity of the evidence base on which scientists and the broader academic community can build further work and advise on matters of policy."