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 96) Show all publications
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
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)000402455900002 ()27718131 (PubMedID)
Available from: 2017-03-15 Created: 2017-03-15 Last updated: 2017-08-28Bibliographically 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
Sjostrand, M., Karlsson, P., Sandman, L., Helgesson, G., Eriksson, S. & Juth, N. (2015). Conceptions of decision-making capacity in psychiatry: interviews with Swedish psychiatrists. BMC Medical Ethics, 16, Article ID 34.
Open this publication in new window or tab >>Conceptions of decision-making capacity in psychiatry: interviews with Swedish psychiatrists
Show others...
2015 (English)In: BMC Medical Ethics, ISSN 1472-6939, E-ISSN 1472-6939, Vol. 16, article id 34Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

Background: Decision-making capacity is a key concept in contemporary healthcare ethics. Previous research has mainly focused on philosophical, conceptual issues or on evaluation of different tools for assessing patients' capacity. The aim of the present study is to investigate how the concept and its normative role are understood in Swedish psychiatric care. Of special interest for present purposes are the relationships between decisional capacity and psychiatric disorders and between health law and practical ethics. Methods: Eight in-depth interviews were conducted with Swedish psychiatrists. The interviews were analysed according to descriptive qualitative content analysis in which categories and sub-categories were distilled from the material. Results: Decision-making capacity was seen as dependent on understanding, insight, evaluation, reasoning, and abilities related to making and communicating a choice. However, also the actual content of the decision was held as relevant. There was an ambivalence regarding the relationship between psychiatric disorders and capacity and a tendency to regard psychiatric patients who made unwise treatment decisions as decisionally incapable. However, in cases relating to patients with somatic illnesses, the assumption was rather that patients who made unwise decisions were imprudent but yet decisionally capable. Conclusions: The respondents' conceptions of decision-making capacity were mainly in line with standard theories. However, the idea that capacity also includes aspects relating to the content of the decision clearly deviates from the standard view. The tendency to regard imprudent choices by psychiatric patients as betokening lack of decision-making capacity differs from the view taken of such choices in somatic care. This difference merits further investigations.

Keywords
Psychiatry, Bioethics, Mental capacity, Personal autonomy, Paternalism, Involuntary commitment
National Category
Medical Ethics
Identifiers
urn:nbn:se:uu:diva-262006 (URN)10.1186/s12910-015-0026-8 (DOI)000359415200001 ()25990948 (PubMedID)
Funder
Swedish Research Council, 437-2014-299
Available from: 2015-09-07 Created: 2015-09-07 Last updated: 2017-12-04Bibliographically approved
Sjostrand, M., Sandman, L., Karlsson, P., Helgesson, G., Eriksson, S. & Juth, N. (2015). Ethical deliberations about involuntary treatment: interviews with Swedish psychiatrists. BMC Medical Ethics, 16, Article ID 37.
Open this publication in new window or tab >>Ethical deliberations about involuntary treatment: interviews with Swedish psychiatrists
Show others...
2015 (English)In: BMC Medical Ethics, ISSN 1472-6939, E-ISSN 1472-6939, Vol. 16, article id 37Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

Background: Involuntary treatment is a key issue in healthcare ethics. In this study, ethical issues relating to involuntary psychiatric treatment are investigated through interviews with Swedish psychiatrists. Methods: In-depth interviews were conducted with eight Swedish psychiatrists, focusing on their experiences of and views on compulsory treatment. In relation to this, issues about patient autonomy were also discussed. The interviews were analysed using a descriptive qualitative approach. Results: The answers focus on two main aspects of compulsory treatment. Firstly, deliberations about when and why it was justifiable to make a decision on involuntary treatment in a specific case. Here the cons and pros of ordering compulsory treatment were discussed, with particular emphasis on the consequences of providing treatment vs. refraining from ordering treatment. Secondly, a number of issues relating to background factors affecting decisions for or against involuntary treatment were also discussed. These included issues about the Swedish Mental Care Act, healthcare organisation and the care environment. Conclusions: Involuntary treatment was generally seen as an unwanted exception to standard care. The respondents' judgments about involuntary treatment were typically in line with Swedish law on the subject. However, it was also argued that the law leaves room for individual judgments when making decisions about involuntary treatment. Much of the reasoning focused on the consequences of ordering involuntary treatment, where risk of harm to the therapeutic alliance was weighed against the assumed good consequences of ensuring that patients received needed treatment. Cases concerning suicidal patients and psychotic patients who did not realise their need for care were typically held as paradigmatic examples of justified involuntary care. However, there was an ambivalence regarding the issue of suicide as it was also argued that risk of suicide in itself might not be sufficient for justified involuntary care. It was moreover argued that organisational factors sometimes led to decisions about compulsory treatment that could have been avoided, given a more patient-oriented healthcare organisation.

Keywords
Psychiatry, Bioethics, Personal autonomy, Paternalism, Coercion, Involuntary commitment
National Category
Medical Ethics
Identifiers
urn:nbn:se:uu:diva-262005 (URN)10.1186/s12910-015-0029-5 (DOI)000359415500002 ()26016885 (PubMedID)
Funder
Swedish Research Council, 437-2014-299
Available from: 2015-09-07 Created: 2015-09-07 Last updated: 2017-12-04Bibliographically approved
Eriksson, S. (2015). Forskningsetikens nya huvudfråga – den falska akademin?. Svensk Kirurgi, 73(4), 180-183
Open this publication in new window or tab >>Forskningsetikens nya huvudfråga – den falska akademin?
2015 (Swedish)In: Svensk Kirurgi, ISSN 0346-847X, Vol. 73, no 4, p. 180-183Article in journal (Other (popular science, discussion, etc.)) Published
Keywords
Predatory publishing, Forskningsfusk
National Category
Ethics
Identifiers
urn:nbn:se:uu:diva-269642 (URN)
Note

Sampublicerad av Svensk Onkologi (2015 nr 5 s 31-33) och Svensk Kirurgi (2015 vol 73 nr 4 s 180-183)

Available from: 2015-12-17 Created: 2015-12-17 Last updated: 2017-12-01Bibliographically approved
Eriksson, S. (2015). Ge doktorander en starkare ställning: kommentar till Eivind Torps ”Vem äger rätten till doktorandersforskningsresultat?”. Förvaltningsrättslig Tidskrift (3), 371-376
Open this publication in new window or tab >>Ge doktorander en starkare ställning: kommentar till Eivind Torps ”Vem äger rätten till doktorandersforskningsresultat?”
2015 (Swedish)In: Förvaltningsrättslig Tidskrift, ISSN 0015-8585, no 3, p. 371-376Article in journal (Other academic) Published
Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
Uppsala: , 2015
National Category
Ethics
Research subject
Administrative Law
Identifiers
urn:nbn:se:uu:diva-269641 (URN)
Available from: 2015-12-17 Created: 2015-12-17 Last updated: 2017-12-01
Organisations
Identifiers
ORCID iD: ORCID iD iconorcid.org/35388049200

Search in DiVA

Show all publications