Difference between revisions of "Resource:A9e1f468-b56b-4ae5-91fe-20024d43e154"
From The Embassy of Good Science
Marc.VanHoof (talk | contribs) |
Marc.VanHoof (talk | contribs) |
||
| Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
<references /> | <references /> | ||
|Important Because=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<ref>https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0048733318300817?via%3Dihub</ref>. | |Important Because=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<ref>https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0048733318300817?via%3Dihub</ref>. | ||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | Journal | ||
| + | |||
| + | Factual | ||
<references /> | <references /> | ||
|Important For=researchers; research leaders; All stakeholders in research; phd students | |Important For=researchers; research leaders; All stakeholders in research; phd students | ||
Revision as of 15:15, 28 April 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].
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].
Journal
Factual
