Technology and Information Tool Preferences of Academics in the Field of Anaesthesiology

Basit Öğe Kaydı
dc.contributor.authorAkkaya, Akcan
dc.contributor.authorBilgi, Murat
dc.contributor.authorDemirhan, Abdullah
dc.contributor.authorKurt, Adem Deniz
dc.contributor.authorTekelioglu, Umit Yasar
dc.contributor.authorAkkaya, Kadir
dc.contributor.authorKocoglu, Hasan
dc.date.accessioned2024-09-25T19:56:15Z
dc.date.available2024-09-25T19:56:15Z
dc.date.issued2014
dc.departmentAbant İzzet Baysal Üniversitesien_US
dc.description.abstractObjective: 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.doi10.5152/TJAR.2014.65902
dc.identifier.endpage347en_US
dc.identifier.issn2667-677X
dc.identifier.issn2667-6370
dc.identifier.issue6en_US
dc.identifier.pmid27366448en_US
dc.identifier.startpage341en_US
dc.identifier.urihttps://doi.org/10.5152/TJAR.2014.65902
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12491/13212
dc.identifier.volume42en_US
dc.identifier.wosWOS:000218637200008en_US
dc.identifier.wosqualityN/Aen_US
dc.indekslendigikaynakWeb of Scienceen_US
dc.indekslendigikaynakPubMeden_US
dc.institutionauthorTekce, Hikmet
dc.language.isotren_US
dc.publisherAvesen_US
dc.relation.ispartofTurkish Journal of Anaesthesiology And Reanimationen_US
dc.relation.publicationcategoryMakale - Uluslararası Hakemli Dergi - Kurum Öğretim Elemanıen_US
dc.rightsinfo:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessen_US
dc.snmzYK_20240925en_US
dc.subjectAnaesthesiologyen_US
dc.subjectscientific publicationen_US
dc.subjectbiomedical information toolsen_US
dc.titleTechnology and Information Tool Preferences of Academics in the Field of Anaesthesiologyen_US
dc.typeArticleen_US

Dosyalar

Koleksiyon

WoS İndeksli Yayınlar Koleksiyonu
PubMed İndeksli Yayınlar Koleksiyonu