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.
- ↑ 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.
