Türkiye'de Endodonti Alanında Akademik Verimliliği Etkileyen Faktörler: Kesitsel Analiz Çalışması

Abstract

Amaç: Bu çalışma, Türkiye'deki endodonti alanında akademik üretkenliği etkileyen faktörleri analiz etmeyi amaçlamaktadır. Özellikle öğretim üyelerinin akademik statüsü (profesör, doçent ve doktor öğretim üyesi), şehir dağılımı ve üniversite türü (devlet üniversitesi vs. vakıf üniversitesi) üzerine odaklanılmıştır. Gereç ve Yöntemler: Türkiye'deki üniversitelerin endodonti anabilim dalında görev yapan toplam 269 akademisyene ait veriler, YÖK Akademik, Web of Science ve Google Scholar Akademik platformlarından ileri düzey arama yapılarak elde edilmiştir. Bu küresel platformlar kullanılarak her bir akademisyenin H-indeksi, makale sayısı ve atıf oranları belirlenmiştir. Bulgular: Devlet üniversiteleri, vakıf üniversitelerine kıyasla daha fazla makale yayımlamıştır (p=0.019). Profesörlerin H-indeksi, toplam yayın sayısı ve toplam atıf sayısı anlamlı derecede daha yüksektir (p<0.05). Metropol ve diğer şehirlerdeki üniversiteler arasında araştırma metrikleri açısından anlamlı bir fark bulunmamıştır. Sonuçlar: Çalışma, akademik ünvan ile verimlilik arasında pozitif bir korelasyon olduğunu göstermektedir; daha yüksek statü, artan akademik üretkenlik ile ilişkilidir. Devlet üniversitelerinde görev yapan akademisyenler, vakıf üniversitelerindekilere göre daha fazla yayın üretmektedir. Bununla birlikte, metropol ve metropol olmayan şehirler arasındaki akademik performans düzeyleri benzerdir. Çalışma sınırlamalarına rağmen bu bulgular, çeşitli bağlamlarda akademik performans dinamiklerine dair değerli veriler sunmaktadır.

Keywords

• akademik başarı
• akademik performans
• endodonti
• makale
• yayınlar.

A Comprehensive Analysis of the Factors Influencing Academic Productivity in Endodontics in Turkey

Abstract

Objectives: The present study aims to analyse the factors influencing academic productivity in endodontics in Turkey, with a particular focus on academic status of faculty members (professors, associate professors, and assistant professors), regional distribution, and institutional type (state vs. foundation universities) in Turkey. Materials and Methods: The study data of a total of 269 academics in department of endodontics of the universities in Turkey were obtained through an advanced search of YOK akademik, Web of Sciences, and Google Scholar Akademik. The H-index, number of articles, and citation rates for each academic were determined by utilizing these global platforms. Results: State universities published more articles than foundation universities (p=0.019). Professors had significantly higher H-indexes, total publication counts, and total citations (p<0.05). There were no significant differences in research metrics among universities in metropolitan and other cities. Conclusions: The study demonstrates a positive correlation between academic status and performance, with higher status associated with enhanced productivity. Academics at state universities produce more publications than those at foundation universites, while academic performance levels remain similar between metropolitan and non-metropolitan cities. Despite limitations, these findings offer valuable insights into academic performance dynamics across various contexts.

Keywords

• academic performance
• academic success
• endodontics
• manuscript
• publications.

References

1. Waaijer CJF, Ommering BWC, van der Wurff LJ, van Leeuwen TN, Dekker FW. NVMO Special Interest Group on Scientific Education. Scientific activity by medical students: the relationship between academic publishing during medical school and publication careers after graduation. Perspect Med Educ. 2019;8(4):223-229.
2. Wang R, Lewis M, Zheng-Pywell R, Julson J, Smithson M, Chen H. Using the H-index as a factor in the promotion of surgical faculty. Heliyon. 2022;8(4):e09319.
3. Tandon S, Venkiteswaran A, Baliga SM, Nayak UA. Recent research trends in dentistry. J Indian Soc Pedod Prev Dent. 2017;35(2):102-105.
4. De Araújo LP, Da Rosa WLO, Gobbo LB, Da Silva TA, De Almeida JFA, Ferraz CCR. Global research trends on photodynamic therapy in endodontics: A bibliometric analysis. Photodiagnosis Photodyn Ther. 2022;40:103039.
5. Connert T, Weiger R, Krastl G. Present status and future directions – Guided endodontics. Int Endod J. 2022;55:995–1002.
6. Siqueira JF, Rôças IN. Present status and future directions in endodontic microbiology. Endod Topics. 2014;30:3–22.
7. Joyce KE, Cartwright N. Bridging the Gap Between Research and Practice: Predicting What Will Work Locally. American Educational Research Journal. 2019; 57(3):1045–82.
8. Özsoy M, Balyer A. Establishment Policies of Research Universities: A Critical Analysis of Global and Turkish Perspectives. Higher Education Governance and Policy. 2023;4:79–94.

9. Demarco FF, Correa MB, Cenci MS, Trevor Burke FJ, Maria Opdam NJ, Faria-E-Silva AL. Practice based research in dentistry: An alternative to deal with clinical questions. Braz Oral Res. 2020;34:e071.
10. Hanafi I, Kheder K, Sabouni R, et al. Factors influencing research productivity among Syrian medical professionals amidst conflict: A case-control study. BMC Med Educ. 2024; 24(1):747.
11. Millones-Gómez PA, Minchón-Medina CA, Rodríguez-Salazar DY, Delgado-Caramutti JGA, Valencia-Arias A. Factors associated with scientific production citations in dentistry: Zero-inflated negative binomial regression and hurdle modelling. F1000Res. 2023;12:1321.
12. Hoskin ER, Bertone M, Chun YP, Lee AL, Motahari MZ, Martin AB. Should dental school faculty be measured and compensated using academic productivity models? Two viewpoints. J Dent Educ. 2020;84(5):534-542.
13. Doğramacı EJ, Rossi-Fedele G. Predictors of societal and professional impact of Endodontology research articles: A multivariate scientometric analysis. Int Endod J. 2022; 55(4):312-325.
14. Eliacik BK, Karahan M. Gender Differences in Academic Productivity within Pediatric Dentistry Departments in Turkey. JDI. 2021;28:139–45.
15. Demirci M, Karabay F, Tuncer S, Tekçe N, Berkman M. 101 Top-cited Dentistry Articles From Turkey: A Bibliometric Analysis. Meandros Medical & Dental Journal. 2021;22:8-23.
16. Uslu B. Küresel Yayın Ligi: Türkiye Hangi Kümede Yer Alıyor? MJER. 2019;13:182–203. Demir SB. Pros and cons of the new financial support policy for Turkish researchers. Scientometrics. 2018;116:2053–68.
17. Garner RM, Hirsch JA, Albuquerque FC, et al. Bibliometric indices: defining academic productivity and citation rates of researchers, departments and journals. JNIS. 2018;10:102-106.
18. García-Villar C, García-Santos JM. Bibliometric indicators to evaluate scientific activity. Indicadores bibliométricos para evaluar la actividad científica. Radiologia (Engl Ed). 2021;63(3): 228-235.
19. Gasparyan AY, Yessirkepov M, Duisenova A, Trukhachev VI, Kostyukova EI, Kitas GD. Researcher and Author Impact Metrics: Variety, Value, and Context. J Korean Med Sci. 2018;33(18):e139.
20. Abramo G, D’Angelo CA. How do you define and measure research productivity? Scientometrics. 2018; 101: 1129–44.
21. Tamtekin O.A. Research Performance of Higher Education Institutions: A Review on the Measurements and Affecting Factors of Research Performance. J Higher Edu Sci. 2017;(2):312.
22. Heng K, Hamid MO, Khan A. Factors Influencing Academics’ Research Engagement and Productivity: A Developing Countries Perspective. Issues in Educational Research. 2020;30:965–87.
23. Ak M, Gülmez A. Türkiye’nin Uluslararası Yayın Performansının Analizi. AID. 2014(1):22–49.
24. Mbachu UC, Unachukwu GO. Comparative analysis of research outputs of academics in Private and Public Universities in South East Nigeria. WJARR. 2022;13(01):565–575.
25. Gadhoum Y, Karam Y. The determinants of research productivity in public versus private Saudi universities. APIAR. 2016;2(2):625-660.
26. Dinis-Oliveira RJ. The H-index in Life and Health Sciences: Advantages, Drawbacks and Challenging Opportunities. Curr Drug Res Rev. 2019;11(2):82-84.
27. Abramo G, D’Angelo CA, Soldatenkova A. The ratio of top scientists to the academic staff as an indicator of the competitive strength of universities. J Informetr. 2016;10:596–605.