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

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