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.
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.
Entities:
Keywords:
Anaesthesiology; biomedical information tools; scientific publication