Difference between revisions of "Resource:A9e1f468-b56b-4ae5-91fe-20024d43e154"
From The Embassy of Good Science
Marc.VanHoof (talk | contribs) |
|||
| Line 11: | Line 11: | ||
}} | }} | ||
{{Related To | {{Related To | ||
| + | |Related To Resource=Resource:D303f2ff-021f-4b2e-a145-f7b441e35830;Resource:226c89f1-a061-4bb0-8ec4-79583de2ddf0 | ||
|Related To Theme=Theme:28a0859b-9e52-4af4-97f0-b0f8eeac1f1c | |Related To Theme=Theme:28a0859b-9e52-4af4-97f0-b0f8eeac1f1c | ||
}} | }} | ||
Revision as of 10:35, 7 August 2020
ResourcesCases
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.
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[2].
For whom is this important?
Other information
When
Where
Virtues & Values
Good Practices & Misconduct
Research Area
References
- ↑ 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.
- ↑ 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.
