uu.seUppsala University Publications
Change search
Link to record
Permanent link

Direct link
BETA
Eriksson, Stefan, DocentORCID iD iconorcid.org/35388049200
Alternative names
Publications (10 of 100) Show all publications
Eriksson, S., Godskesen, T., Andersson, L. & Helgesson, G. (2018). How to counter undeserving authorship. Insights: the UKSG journal, 31(1), 1-6
Open this publication in new window or tab >>How to counter undeserving authorship
2018 (English)In: Insights: the UKSG journal, E-ISSN 2048-7754, Vol. 31, no 1, p. 1-6Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

The average number of authors listed on contributions to scientific journals has increased considerably over time. While this may be accounted for by the increased complexity of much research and a corresponding need for extended collaboration, several studies suggest that the prevalence of non-deserving authors on research papers is alarming. In this paper a combined qualitative and quantitative approach is suggested to reduce the number of undeserving authors on academic papers: 1) ask scholars who apply for positions to explain the basics of a random selection of their co-authored papers, and 2) in bibliometric measurements, divide publications and citations by the number of authors.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
Witney, UK: UKSG & Ubiquity Press, 2018
Keywords
Ethics, authorship, scientific publishing, honorary authors, bibliometrics
National Category
Ethics
Research subject
Bioethics
Identifiers
urn:nbn:se:uu:diva-342788 (URN)10.1629/uksg.395 (DOI)000438727600001 ()
Available from: 2018-02-23 Created: 2018-02-23 Last updated: 2018-09-27Bibliographically approved
Ancillotti, M., Eriksson, S., Veldwijk, J., Nihlén Fahlquist, J., Andersson, D. I. & Godskesen, T. (2018). Public awareness and individual responsibility needed for judicious use of antibiotics: a qualitative study of public beliefs and perceptions. BMC Public Health, 18(1), Article ID 1153.
Open this publication in new window or tab >>Public awareness and individual responsibility needed for judicious use of antibiotics: a qualitative study of public beliefs and perceptions
Show others...
2018 (English)In: BMC Public Health, ISSN 1471-2458, E-ISSN 1471-2458, Vol. 18, no 1, article id 1153Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

Background

High consumption of antibiotics has been identified as an important driver for the increasing antibiotic resistance, considered to be one of the greatest threats to public health globally. Simply informing the public about this consequence is insufficient to induce behavioral change. This study explored beliefs and perceptions among Swedes, with the aim of identifying factors promoting and hindering a judicious approach to antibiotics use. The study focused primarily on the medical use of antibiotics, also considering other aspects connected with antibiotic resistance, such as travelling and food consumption.

Methods

Data were collected through focus group discussions at the end of 2016. Twenty-three Swedes were recruited using an area-based approach and purposive sampling, aiming for as heterogeneous groups as possible regarding gender (13 women, 10 men), age (range 20–81, mean 38), and education level. Interview transcripts were analyzed using qualitative content analysis. The Health Belief Model was used as a theoretical framework.

Results

Antibiotic resistance was identified by participants as a health threat with the potential for terrible consequences. The severity of the problem was perceived more strongly than the actual likelihood of being affected by it. Metaphors such as climate change were abundantly employed to describe antibiotic resistance as a slowly emerging problem. There was a tension between individual (egoistic) and collective (altruistic) reasons for engaging in judicious behavior. The individual effort needed and antibiotics overprescribing were considered major barriers to such behavior. In their discussions, participants stressed the need for empowerment, achieved through good health communication from authorities and family physicians.

Conclusions

Knowledge about antibiotic consumption and resistance, as well as values such as altruism and trust in the health care system, has significant influence on both perceptions of individual responsibility and on behavior. This suggests that these factors should be emphasized in health education and health promotion. To instead frame antibiotic resistance as a slowly emerging disaster, risks diminish the public perception of being susceptible to it.

Keywords
Antibiotic resistance, health belief model, health behavior, qualitative research, Sweden
National Category
Public Health, Global Health, Social Medicine and Epidemiology
Identifiers
urn:nbn:se:uu:diva-362360 (URN)10.1186/s12889-018-6047-8 (DOI)
Available from: 2018-10-03 Created: 2018-10-03 Last updated: 2018-10-04Bibliographically approved
Helgesson, G. & Eriksson, S. (2018). Responsibility for scientific misconduct in collaborative papers. Medicine, Health care and Philosophy, 21, 423-430
Open this publication in new window or tab >>Responsibility for scientific misconduct in collaborative papers
2018 (English)In: Medicine, Health care and Philosophy, ISSN 1386-7423, E-ISSN 1572-8633, Vol. 21, p. 423-430Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

This paper concerns the responsibility of co-authors in cases of scientific misconduct. Arguments in research integrity guidelines and in the bioethics literature concerning authorship responsibilities are discussed. It is argued that it is unreasonable to claim that for every case where a research paper is found to be fraudulent, each author is morally responsible for all aspects of that paper, or that one particular author has such a responsibility. It is further argued that it is more constructive to specify what task responsibilities come with different roles in a project and describe what kinds of situations or events call for some kind of action, and what the appropriate actions might be.

Keywords
Accountability, Authorship, Research ethics, Research integrity, Responsibility, Scientific misconduct
National Category
Ethics
Research subject
Bioethics
Identifiers
urn:nbn:se:uu:diva-335912 (URN)10.1007/s11019-017-9817-7 (DOI)000441119400015 ()29222668 (PubMedID)
Available from: 2017-12-10 Created: 2017-12-10 Last updated: 2018-10-23Bibliographically approved
Helgesson, G. & Eriksson, S. (2018). Revise the ICMJE Recommendations regarding authorship responsibility!. Learned Publishing, 31(3), 267-269
Open this publication in new window or tab >>Revise the ICMJE Recommendations regarding authorship responsibility!
2018 (English)In: Learned Publishing, ISSN 0953-1513, E-ISSN 1741-4857, Vol. 31, no 3, p. 267-269Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

Key points:

• A clear set of rules regarding authorship responsibilities in academic publications is much needed.

• The leading research integrity guidelines on scientific authorship, the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors Recommendations, are unclear about authorship responsibilities in case of misconduct.

• The source of the problem is the fourth authorship criterion – it should be revised.

National Category
Ethics
Research subject
Bioethics
Identifiers
urn:nbn:se:uu:diva-347445 (URN)10.1002/leap.1161 (DOI)
Available from: 2018-04-02 Created: 2018-04-02 Last updated: 2018-07-06
Eriksson, S. & Helgesson, G. (2018). Time to stop talking about ‘predatory journals’. Learned Publishing, 31(2), 181-183
Open this publication in new window or tab >>Time to stop talking about ‘predatory journals’
2018 (English)In: Learned Publishing, ISSN 0953-1513, E-ISSN 1741-4857, Vol. 31, no 2, p. 181-183Article in journal, Editorial material (Other academic) Published
Abstract [en]

Key points:

• The term ‘predatory journal’ hides a wide range of scholarly publishing misconduct.

• The term ‘predatory journal’ unhelpfully bundles misconduct with poor quality.

• The term ‘predatory journal’ blinds us to important possibilities, needs, and questions arising in the developing scholarly landscape.

• The current scholarly publishing environment cannot rely on such a simplified classification of journals into predatory or not.

National Category
Ethics
Research subject
Ethics
Identifiers
urn:nbn:se:uu:diva-333438 (URN)10.1002/leap.1135 (DOI)000429568500012 ()
Available from: 2017-11-13 Created: 2017-11-13 Last updated: 2018-08-14Bibliographically approved
Godskesen, T., Petri, S., Eriksson, S., Halkoaho, A., Mangset, M., Pirinen, M. & Engelbak Nielsen, Z. (2018). When Nursing Care and Clinical Trials Coincide:: A Qualitative Study of the Views of Nordic Oncology and Hematology Nurses on Ethical Work Challenges. Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics
Open this publication in new window or tab >>When Nursing Care and Clinical Trials Coincide:: A Qualitative Study of the Views of Nordic Oncology and Hematology Nurses on Ethical Work Challenges
Show others...
2018 (English)In: Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics, ISSN 1556-2646, E-ISSN 1556-2654Article in journal (Refereed) Epub ahead of print
Abstract [en]

This study investigated the kinds of ethical challenges experienced by nurses in oncology and hematology when nursing care and research overlap in clinical trials, and how the nurses handle such challenges. Individual interviews with 39 nurses from Sweden, Denmark, and Finland indicated that all nurses were positive about research, considering it essential for developing the best care. Ethical challenges exist, however; the most difficult were associated with the end-of-life patients, no longer responsive to standard therapy, who eagerly volunteer for cutting-edge drug trials in the hope of gaining therapeutic benefit. Many nurses lacked systematic strategies for addressing such challenges but found support from their nursing colleagues and relied on the research protocols to guide them.

Keywords
ethics, cancer/oncology, informed consent, clinical trials, hope, end-of-life, hematology
National Category
Ethics Medical Ethics
Identifiers
urn:nbn:se:uu:diva-356703 (URN)10.1177/1556264618783555 (DOI)
Available from: 2018-08-03 Created: 2018-08-03 Last updated: 2018-10-10Bibliographically approved
Eriksson, S. & Helgesson, G. (2017). The false academy: Predatory publishing in science & bioethics. Medicine, Health care and Philosophy, 20(2), 163-170
Open this publication in new window or tab >>The false academy: Predatory publishing in science & bioethics
2017 (English)In: Medicine, Health care and Philosophy, ISSN 1386-7423, E-ISSN 1572-8633, Vol. 20, no 2, p. 163-170Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

This paper describes and discusses the phenomenon ‘predatory publishing’, in relation to both academic journals and books, and suggests a list of characteristics by which to identify predatory journals. It also raises the question whether traditional publishing houses have accompanied rogue publishers upon this path. It is noted that bioethics as a discipline does not stand unaffected by this trend. Towards the end of the paper it is discussed what can and should be done to eliminate or reduce the effects of this development. The paper concludes that predatory publishing is a growing phenomenon that has the potential to greatly affect both bioethics and science at large. Publishing papers and books for profit, without any genuine concern for content, but with the pretence of applying authentic academic procedures of critical scrutiny, brings about a worrying erosion of trust in scientific publishing.

Keywords
Predatory publishing; Publication ethics; Peer review; Bioethics
National Category
Ethics
Research subject
Ethics
Identifiers
urn:nbn:se:uu:diva-317498 (URN)10.1007/s11019-016-9740-3 (DOI)000419844500002 ()27718131 (PubMedID)
Available from: 2017-03-15 Created: 2017-03-15 Last updated: 2018-09-20Bibliographically approved
Ancillotti, M., Holmberg, N., Lindfelt, M. & Eriksson, S. (2017). Uncritical and unbalanced coverage of synthetic biology in the Nordic press. Public Understanding of Science, 26(2), 235-250
Open this publication in new window or tab >>Uncritical and unbalanced coverage of synthetic biology in the Nordic press
2017 (English)In: Public Understanding of Science, ISSN 0963-6625, E-ISSN 1361-6609, Vol. 26, no 2, p. 235-250Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

Synthetic biology will probably have a high impact on a variety of fields, such as healthcare, environment, biofuels, agriculture, and so on. A driving theme in European research policy is the importance of maintaining public legitimacy and support. Media can influence public attitudes and are therefore an important object of study. Through qualitative content analysis, this study investigates the press coverage of synthetic biology in the major Nordic countries between 2009 and 2014. The press coverage was found to be event-driven and there were striking similarities between countries when it comes to framing, language use, and treated themes. Reporters showed a marked dependence on their sources, mainly scientists and stakeholders, who thus drives the media agenda. The media portrayal was very positive, with an optimistic look at future benefits and very little discussion of possible risks.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
Sage Publications, 2017
Keywords
media representations, public participation, science attitudes and perceptions, science communication, synthetic biology
National Category
Media Studies
Research subject
Media and Communication Studies
Identifiers
urn:nbn:se:uu:diva-265105 (URN)10.1177/0963662515609834 (DOI)000399565500009 ()26481730 (PubMedID)
Projects
Synthetic Biology: media portrayal and public understanding
Note

The first two authors are the first co-authors and have contributed equally.

Available from: 2015-10-22 Created: 2015-10-22 Last updated: 2017-05-30Bibliographically approved
Johnsson, L. & Eriksson, S. (2016). Autonomy is a Right, Not a Feat: How Theoretical Misconceptions have Muddled the Debate on Dynamic Consent to Biobank Research. Bioethics, 30(7), 471-478
Open this publication in new window or tab >>Autonomy is a Right, Not a Feat: How Theoretical Misconceptions have Muddled the Debate on Dynamic Consent to Biobank Research
2016 (English)In: Bioethics, ISSN 0269-9702, E-ISSN 1467-8519, Vol. 30, no 7, p. 471-478Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

Should people be involved as active participants in longitudinal medical research, as opposed to remaining passive providers of data and material? We argue in this article that misconceptions of 'autonomy' as a kind of feat rather than a right are to blame for much of the confusion surrounding the debate of dynamic versus broad consent. Keeping in mind two foundational facts of human life, freedom and dignity, we elaborate three moral principles - those of autonomy, integrity and authority - to better see what is at stake. Respect for autonomy is to recognize the other's right to decide in matters that are important to them. Respect for integrity is to meet, in one's relationship with the other, their need to navigate the intersection between private and social life. Respect for authority is to empower the other - to help them to cultivate their responsibility as citizens. On our account, to force information onto someone who does not want it is not to respect that person's autonomy, but to violate integrity in the name of empowerment. Empowerment, not respect for autonomy, is the aim that sets patient-centred initiatives employing a dynamic consent model apart from other consent models. Whether this is ultimately morally justified depends on whether empowerment ought to be a goal of medical research, which is questionable.

Keywords
authority, autonomy, biobank research, dynamic consent, empowerment, informed consent, integrity
National Category
Ethics Medical Ethics
Research subject
Bioethics
Identifiers
urn:nbn:se:uu:diva-283018 (URN)10.1111/bioe.12254 (DOI)000380948300002 ()26990222 (PubMedID)
Available from: 2016-04-08 Created: 2016-04-08 Last updated: 2017-11-30
Ancillotti, M. & Eriksson, S. (2016). Synthetic Biology in the Press: Media Portrayal in Sweden and Italy. In: K Hagen, M Engelhard & G Toepfer (Ed.), Ambivalences of Creating Life. : Societal and Philosophical Dimensions of Synthetic Biology (pp. 141-156). Dordrecht: Springer
Open this publication in new window or tab >>Synthetic Biology in the Press: Media Portrayal in Sweden and Italy
2016 (English)In: Ambivalences of Creating Life. : Societal and Philosophical Dimensions of Synthetic Biology / [ed] K Hagen, M Engelhard & G Toepfer, Dordrecht: Springer, 2016, p. 141-156Chapter in book (Refereed)
Abstract [en]

Synthetic biology is a rapidly evolving field which potentially can change how we live in and understand the world. Given its potential impact it is important to inform and involve the public so that it gains a proper understanding of synthetic biology and is in a position to assess its future applications and implications. This study investigates through qualitative content analysis the synthetic biology press coverage in Sweden and Italy between 2009 and 2013. The three major newspapers of each country were considered a good example of what was offered to the public in a period which witnessed important scientific advancements of the field and consequent media resonance. The framing of the articles was analyzed in the light of the idea that mass media not only inform the public but also contribute to the shaping of ideas. Language was analysed and found to be generally adequate. The topics were presented in an overall positive and optimistic tone, which was reflected also in the benefits and risks envisioned. The two countries can be considered rather different in many social and cultural respects, yet besides a few differences (mainly quantitative), striking similarities were found, probably related to a marked dependence on the common sources of the articles and the lack of critical scrutiny on the behalf of the media.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
Dordrecht: Springer, 2016
Keywords
Synthetic biology, media, public involvement, public perception of science
National Category
Media Studies
Identifiers
urn:nbn:se:uu:diva-262649 (URN)10.1007/978-3-319-21088-9_7 (DOI)000385258700008 ()9783319210889 (ISBN)9783319210872 (ISBN)
Projects
Synthetic Biology: media portrayal and public understanding
Available from: 2015-09-17 Created: 2015-09-17 Last updated: 2017-03-30
Organisations
Identifiers
ORCID iD: ORCID iD iconorcid.org/35388049200

Search in DiVA

Show all publications