• Giuseppe Lippi, Marcello Ciaccio, and Davide Giavarina.
• 1Section of Clinical Biochemistry, University Hospital of Verona, P.le LA Scuro 10, 37134 Verona, Italy.
• Diagnosis (Berl). 2016 Sep 1; 3 (3): 129-134.

BackgroundDigital libraries are typically used for retrieving and accessing articles in academic journals and repositories. Previous studies have been published about the performance of various biomedical research platforms, but no information is available about access preferences.MethodsA six-question survey was designed by the Italian Society of Clinical Biochemistry and Laboratory Medicine (SIBioC) using the platform Google Drive, and made available for 1 month to the members of the society. The information about the survey was published on the website of SIBioC and also disseminated by two sequential newsletters.ResultsOverall, 165 replies were collected throughout the 1-month survey availability. The largest number of replies were provided by laboratory professionals working in the national healthcare system (44.2%), followed by those working in private facilities (13.9%), university professors (12.7%) and specialization training staff (12.7%). The majority of responders published zero to one articles per year (55.2%), followed by two to five articles per year (37.6%), whereas only 7.3% published more than five articles per year. A total of 34.5% of the responders consulted biomedical research platforms on weekly basis, followed by 33.9% who did so on daily basis. PubMed/Medline was the most accessed scientific database, followed by Scopus, ISI Web of Science and Google Scholar. The impact factor was the leading reason when selecting which journal to publish in. The most consulted journals in the field of laboratory medicine were Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine and Biochimica Clinica.ConclusionsThis survey provides useful indications about the personal inclination towards access to scientific information in our country.

5 keywords...

hide…