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 2: | Line 2: | ||
|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> | + | |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. |
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | This is a factual case. | ||
<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> | + | |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>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>.<references /> |
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
|Important For=researchers; research leaders; All stakeholders in research; phd students | |Important For=researchers; research leaders; All stakeholders in research; phd students | ||
}} | }} | ||
| Line 16: | Line 10: | ||
|Has Link=https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0048733318300817?via%3Dihub | |Has Link=https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0048733318300817?via%3Dihub | ||
}} | }} | ||
| − | {{Related To}} | + | {{Related To |
| + | |Related To Theme=Theme:28a0859b-9e52-4af4-97f0-b0f8eeac1f1c | ||
| + | }} | ||
{{Tags | {{Tags | ||
|Involves=Paolo Macchiarini | |Involves=Paolo Macchiarini | ||
Revision as of 20:58, 26 May 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.
- ↑ 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].
- ↑ 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.
