Technology and Information Tool Preferences of Academics in the Field of Anaesthesiology
dc.contributor.author | Akkaya, Akcan | |
dc.contributor.author | Bilgi, Murat | |
dc.contributor.author | Demirhan, Abdullah | |
dc.contributor.author | Kurt, Adem Deniz | |
dc.contributor.author | Tekelioglu, Umit Yasar | |
dc.contributor.author | Akkaya, Kadir | |
dc.contributor.author | Kocoglu, Hasan | |
dc.date.accessioned | 2024-09-25T19:56:15Z | |
dc.date.available | 2024-09-25T19:56:15Z | |
dc.date.issued | 2014 | |
dc.department | Abant İzzet Baysal Üniversitesi | en_US |
dc.description.abstract | Objective: Researchers use a large number of information technology tools from the beginning until the publication of a scientific study. The aim of the study is to investigate the technology and data processing tool usage preferences of academics who produce scientific publications in the field of anaesthesiology. Methods: A multiple-choice survey, including 18 questions regarding the use of technology to assess the preferences of academicians, was performed. Results: PubMed has been the most preferred article search portal, and the second is Google Academic. Medscape has become the most preferred medical innovation tracking website. Only 12% of academicians obtain a clinical trial registration number for their randomized clinical research. In total, 28% of respondents used the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials checklist in their clinical trials. Of all participants, 21% was using Dropbox and 9% was using Google-Drive for sharing files. Google Chrome was the most preferred internet browser (32.25%) for academic purposes. English language editing service was obtained from the Scribendi (21%) and Textcheck (12%) websites. Half of the academics were getting help from their specialist with a personal relationship, 27% was doing it themselves, and 24% was obtaining professional assistance for statistical requirements. Sixty percent of the participants were not using a reference editing program, and 21% was using EndNote. Nine percent of the academics were spending money for article writing, and the mean cost was 1287 Turkish Liras/ year. Conclusion: Academics in the field of anaesthesiology significantly benefit from technology and informatics tools to produce scientific publications. | en_US |
dc.identifier.doi | 10.5152/TJAR.2014.65902 | |
dc.identifier.endpage | 347 | en_US |
dc.identifier.issn | 2667-677X | |
dc.identifier.issn | 2667-6370 | |
dc.identifier.issue | 6 | en_US |
dc.identifier.pmid | 27366448 | en_US |
dc.identifier.startpage | 341 | en_US |
dc.identifier.uri | https://doi.org/10.5152/TJAR.2014.65902 | |
dc.identifier.uri | https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12491/13212 | |
dc.identifier.volume | 42 | en_US |
dc.identifier.wos | WOS:000218637200008 | en_US |
dc.identifier.wosquality | N/A | en_US |
dc.indekslendigikaynak | Web of Science | en_US |
dc.indekslendigikaynak | PubMed | en_US |
dc.institutionauthor | Tekce, Hikmet | |
dc.language.iso | tr | en_US |
dc.publisher | Aves | en_US |
dc.relation.ispartof | Turkish Journal of Anaesthesiology And Reanimation | en_US |
dc.relation.publicationcategory | Makale - Uluslararası Hakemli Dergi - Kurum Öğretim Elemanı | en_US |
dc.rights | info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess | en_US |
dc.snmz | YK_20240925 | en_US |
dc.subject | Anaesthesiology | en_US |
dc.subject | scientific publication | en_US |
dc.subject | biomedical information tools | en_US |
dc.title | Technology and Information Tool Preferences of Academics in the Field of Anaesthesiology | en_US |
dc.type | Article | en_US |