Difference between revisions of "Resource:A9e1f468-b56b-4ae5-91fe-20024d43e154"

From The Embassy of Good Science
Line 1: Line 1:
 
{{Resource
 
{{Resource
 
|Resource Type=Cases
 
|Resource Type=Cases
|Title=Scientific misconduct at an elite medical institute: The role of competing institutional logics and fragmented control
+
|Title=Scientific Misconduct at an Elite Medical Institute: The Role of Competing Institutional Logics and Fragmented Control
 
|Is About=This paper builds on the concepts of competing logics and institutional fields to analyze a serious case of medical and scientific misconduct at a leading research institute, Karolinska in Sweden, home to the Nobel Prize in Medicine<ref>Berggren, Christian, and Solmaz Filiz Karabag. "Scientific misconduct at an elite medical institute: The role of competing institutional logics and fragmented control." ''Research Policy'' 48.2 (2019): 428-443.</ref>. This is a factual case.
 
|Is About=This paper builds on the concepts of competing logics and institutional fields to analyze a serious case of medical and scientific misconduct at a leading research institute, Karolinska in Sweden, home to the Nobel Prize in Medicine<ref>Berggren, Christian, and Solmaz Filiz Karabag. "Scientific misconduct at an elite medical institute: The role of competing institutional logics and fragmented control." ''Research Policy'' 48.2 (2019): 428-443.</ref>. This is a factual case.
 
<references />
 
<references />

Revision as of 19:59, 26 May 2020

Cases

Scientific Misconduct at an Elite Medical Institute: The Role of Competing Institutional Logics and Fragmented Control

What is this about?

This paper builds on the concepts of competing logics and institutional fields to analyze a serious case of medical and scientific misconduct at a leading research institute, Karolinska in Sweden, home to the Nobel Prize in Medicine[1]. This is a factual case.

  1. Berggren, Christian, and Solmaz Filiz Karabag. "Scientific misconduct at an elite medical institute: The role of competing institutional logics and fragmented control." Research Policy 48.2 (2019): 428-443.

Why is this important?

The incidence of revealed fraud and dishonesty in academia is on the rise, and so is the number of studies seeking to explain scientific misconduct[1].
  1. Berggren, Christian, and Solmaz Filiz Karabag. "Scientific misconduct at an elite medical institute: The role of competing institutional logics and fragmented control." Research Policy 48.2 (2019): 428-443.

For whom is this important?

Other information

When
Where
Good Practices & Misconduct
Research Area
Cookies help us deliver our services. By using our services, you agree to our use of cookies.
5.1.6