The evaluation survey administered following the “Symposium on Recent Advances in Alzheimer's Disease,” held in observance of World Alzheimer's Day, enabled an assessment of the event in terms of its scientific content, topical relevance, clarity, contribution to knowledge and awareness, organization, and participant satisfaction. A total of 45 individuals attended the symposium, of whom 28 completed the survey (62.2%).

Undergraduate students accounted for 92.9% of survey respondents. The participation of academic staff (3.6%) and master's students (3.6%) further demonstrates that the symposium reached attendees at different academic levels (Figure 1).

Regarding the scientific content and scope of the topics covered, 28.6% of respondents indicated that their expectations were fully met, 50% that they were largely met, and 17.9% that they were moderately met. A further 3.6% reported that their expectations regarding the scientific content and scope were partially met (Figure 2).

Figure 2. Participants' assessments of the extent to which the scientific content and topic coverage met their expectations.

Of the respondents, 96.4% reported that the symposium had increased their knowledge and awareness of Alzheimer's disease (Figure 3). This finding suggests that, beyond serving as a scientific forum for the dissemination of information, the event provided an effective setting for academic exchange that strengthened participants' awareness of the subject.

Figure 3. Participants' assessments of the event's contribution to their knowledge and awareness of the subject.

Of the respondents, 96.4% found the information presented to be clear and easy to follow (Figure 4). This finding suggests that the scientific content was communicated clearly and that participants with varying levels of prior knowledge were able to follow the event readily.

Figure 4. Participants' assessments of the clarity and ease of following the information presented.

On the otherhand, 96.4% of the participants stated that the topics addressed during the event were current and aligned with academic needs (Figure 5). This assessment indicates that the symposium programme reflected current scientific developments in the field and responded effectively to participants' needs for up-to-date information.

Figure 5. Participants' assessments of the topical relevance of the subjects addressed and their alignment with academic needs.

While 82.1% of respondents considered the duration of the event adequate for the content presented, 14.3% were undecided, and 3.6% considered it insufficient (Figure 6). Taken together, these findings indicate that the symposium was effectively planned and conducted in terms of scheduling, technical arrangements, and the balance between content and duration.

Figure 6. Participants' assessments of the adequacy of the event duration in relation to its content.

Overall satisfaction with the event was rated as “very high” by 32.1% of respondents, “high” by 50%, and “moderate” by 17.9% (Figure 7).

Figure 7. Participants' overall satisfaction with the event.

In the open-ended responses, participants particularly highlighted the scientific content; the academics' detailed and accessible presentations; the selection of a timely and engaging topic; the presentation of the clinical context of Alzheimer's disease from its historical background to the present day; the research-based approach; and the opportunity to engage with experienced academics following the event. These responses indicate that the symposium provided a valuable platform combining the dissemination of scientific knowledge with academic interaction.

Participants also offered constructive suggestions for further enriching the content of future scientific events. These included incorporating more up-to-date epidemiological data, increasing the use of visual materials, providing greater detail on research studies, and addressing certain presentation topics more comprehensively.

Overall, the survey findings indicate that the “Symposium on Recent Advances in Alzheimer's Disease” achieved positive outcomes in terms of scientific content, topical relevance, clarity, enhancement of knowledge and awareness, organization, and overall participant satisfaction. Participant feedback suggests that the symposium made an important contribution to the dissemination of current scientific knowledge, increased awareness of Alzheimer's disease, and the promotion of scientific interaction between academics and participants.

A total of 81 individuals attended the event entitled “Recent Advances in Biosensor Research,” organized as part of the DESAM Periodic Conference Series. Of these, 37 (45.68%) completed the post-event survey designed to gather participants’ opinions and evaluations of the event.

According to the survey results, 51.4% of the participants were academics, 37.8% were undergraduate students, 5.4% were master’s students, 2.7% were doctoral students, and 2.7% were from external institutions. This distribution indicates that the event reached participants from different academic levels and professional groups (Figure 1).

Figure 1. Percentage distribution of participants by academic status.

Regarding participants’ prior knowledge of biosensors and related fields, 44.4% reported a basic level of knowledge, 33.3% an intermediate level, and 13.9% an advanced level, while 8.3% reported having no prior knowledge of the subject (Figure 2).

Figure 2. Participants’ self-assessments of their knowledge of biosensors and related fields.

Regarding the perceived usefulness of the event content, 75% of respondents strongly agreed that it was useful, 19.4% agreed, and 5.6% were undecided. None of the respondents considered the event content to be unhelpful (Figure 3).

Figure 3. Participants’ evaluations of the usefulness of the event content.

Regarding the speakers’ subject-matter expertise and the clarity and comprehensibility of the presentations, 91.9% of respondents rated these aspects as very high, 5.4% as high, and 2.7% as moderate. No respondents provided a negative evaluation (Figure 4).

Figure 4. Participants’ evaluations of the speakers’ subject-matter expertise and the clarity and comprehensibility of the presentations.

Regarding the contribution of knowledge acquired during the conference to participants’ professional and academic development, 73% rated this contribution as very high, 21.6% as high, and 2.7% as moderate. A further 2.7% indicated that the knowledge acquired during the conference would not contribute to their professional and academic development (Figure 5).

Figure 5. Participants’ evaluations of the contribution of knowledge acquired during the conference to their professional and academic development.

Similarly, when participants were asked whether the event had increased their interest in biosensors, 70.3% reported a very high increase and 13.5% a high increase. A further 10.8% were undecided, while 5.4% indicated that the event had not increased their interest in the field of biosensors (Figure 6).

Figure 6. Participants’ evaluations of the extent to which the event increased their interest in biosensors.

Regarding the effect of the event on participants’ willingness to conduct research in biosensors, 62.2% reported a very high increase and 16.2% a high increase in their willingness to undertake research. A further 13.5% were undecided, while 8.1% indicated that the event had not increased their willingness to conduct research (Figure 7).

Figure 7. Participants’ evaluations of the effect of the event on their willingness to conduct research in biosensors.

Finally, regarding the perceived value of organizing scientific events regularly, 89.2% of respondents strongly agreed that holding such events on a regular basis would be beneficial, while 10.8% agreed. No respondents expressed an undecided or negative opinion (Figure 8).

Figure 8. Participants’ evaluations of the benefits of organizing scientific events regularly.

Analysis of responses to the open-ended questions identified nanotechnology, nanobiosensors, medical applications of biosensors, the multidisciplinary approach, the engaging nature of the subject, and the presentation format as key strengths of the event. These evaluations indicate that the event provided an opportunity to address both the theoretical and applied dimensions of biosensor technologies.

Responses concerning areas for improvement indicated that the high level of interest in the event content was accompanied by expectations of reaching a broader audience. In this context, some participants suggested that including more explanations in English or providing English-language supporting materials would be beneficial.

Nanotechnology and bioinformatics were particularly prominent among the topics suggested for future events. Other suggested subjects included advanced genetics, biotechnology, epigenetics and toxicology, microbiology, nuclear medicine, medical applications, and smart sensor technologies.

Overall, the event entitled “Recent Advances in Biosensor Research” was perceived by participants as useful, up to date, comprehensible, and scientifically engaging.

A total of 78 individuals attended the ISO 22000:2018 Food Safety Management System Training held on 23–24 March 2026. The post-training evaluation survey was completed by 42 participants (53.8%).

According to the survey results, the majority of the participants were undergraduate students, accounting for 66.7%. Of the remaining participants, 23.8% were graduate students, 4.8% were academic staff, 2.4% were administrative staff, and 2.4% were graduates.  This distribution indicates that the training reached participants at different academic levels and offered content of particular interest to students and early-career researchers (Figure 1).

The presentation content fully met the expectations of 64.3% of respondents, largely met those of 28.6%, moderately met those of 4.8%, and partially met those of 2.4% (Figure 2)

Figure 2. Percentage distribution of participants’ assessments of the extent to which the scientific content and scope of the presentation met their expectations.

All respondents (100%) reported that the training enhanced their knowledge and awareness of food safety. This finding indicates that the training achieved its objectives of raising awareness and disseminating knowledge to the highest reported degree (Figure 3).

Figure 3. Percentage distribution of participants’ assessments of whether the event enhanced their knowledge and awareness of the field.

All respondents found the presentations clear and easy to follow, and all (100%) considered the content current and aligned with academic needs (Figure 4). These findings suggest effective teaching and clear communication of the material.

Figure 4. Percentage distribution of assessments of the currency of the topics addressed and their alignment with academic needs.

Regarding the adequacy of the training duration, all respondents (100%) stated that the time allocated was sufficient for the content delivered (Figure 5). This finding suggests that the event was appropriately and proportionately structured in terms of time allocation.

Figure 5. Percentage distribution of assessments of the adequacy of the training duration in relation to its content.

Regarding overall satisfaction with the training, 57.1% of respondents rated their satisfaction as very high, 35.7% as high, and 7.1% as moderate (Figure 6). These findings indicate high overall satisfaction with the event and suggest that it largely met participants’ expectations.

Figure 6. Distribution of participants’ overall satisfaction levels with the training.

Of the respondents, 42.9% preferred these events more frequently, 19.0% once per academic term, 11.9% twice a year, and 26.2% once a year (Figure 7). These findings suggest that most participants considered the training beneficial and supported the continued provision of similar educational activities.

Figure 7. Distribution of participants’ preferences regarding the frequency of training events.

The aspects of the training that participants identified as most beneficial included the provision of up-to-date, practice-oriented content; the use of informative videos to support an interactive learning environment; the sharing of experience by subject-matter experts; clear and accessible communication of information; and the contribution of the training to professional development.

Although overall satisfaction was high, participants also proposed several areas for further improvement. The principal suggestions included offering training sessions more frequently, addressing the content in greater depth and within a more rigorous scientific framework, and diversifying the supporting materials.

In conclusion, the findings suggest that participants derived substantial benefit from the training and that continuing to offer similar educational activities in the future would be valuable.

Following the “Support Your Idea: Project Preparation and Application Processes Symposium,” a survey was conducted among 30 participants who attended the event in order to evaluate their opinions and experiences regarding the symposium. A total of 14 participants responded to the survey, corresponding to a response rate of 46.7%. The collected data were analyzed within the framework of thematic categories. The survey findings are presented below with an interpretative approach that reflects not only quantitative results but also participants’ perceptions and evaluations of the event.

According to the survey results, an examination of the participants’ academic status indicates that a significant portion of the group consisted of members of the academic community. Among the respondents, 50% were professors, 21.4% were associate professors, 14.3% were undergraduate students, and 7.1% were research assistants. This distribution suggests that the symposium was able to reach participants from different academic levels and provided content that was particularly appealing to researchers at the early stages of their academic careers. The percentage distribution of participants according to their academic status is presented in Figure 1.

Figure 1. Percentage distribution of participants’ academic status.

When the participants’ project experience was evaluated, 78.6% reported that they had not previously taken part in any national or international research project, while 21.4% indicated that they had prior project experience. This finding suggests that the event served as an important source of information and awareness, particularly for researchers with limited experience in project preparation and application processes. Accordingly, the symposium can be considered to have functioned not only as a platform for experienced researchers but also as a guiding resource for individuals at the early stages of their academic careers.

An examination of the results related to funding applications indicates that participants have had varying levels of experience with different funding sources. 71.4% of the participants reported that they had previously applied for BAP (Scientific Research Projects), 42.9% for TÜBİTAK projects, 35.7% for European Union projects, and 35.7% for other international funding sources. However, the fact that 21.4% of the participants had never submitted any funding application suggests that there remains considerable potential for improvement within the academic community in terms of project writing and access to funding opportunities. Furthermore, the post-event evaluation revealed that 92.9% of the participants stated that they had gained information about new funding sources through the symposium, clearly demonstrating the symposium’s strong role in raising awareness and providing information in this field. In this context, it can be argued that the symposium created a platform that increased participants’ awareness of project preparation processes and encouraged them to engage in project development. The results related to this question are presented in Figure 2.

Figure 2. Funding sources previously applied to by participants.

When the duration and flow of the event program were evaluated, the majority of participants reported that the program length was sufficient. 92.9% of the participants stated that the program duration was appropriate, while 7.1% indicated that the event could have been longer.

Within the scope of the event, several subtopics related to project preparation and funding application processes were addressed. When participants were asked which sessions they found the most academically beneficial, a considerable proportion (57.1%) stated that all sessions were similarly beneficial. This finding suggests that the event program was designed in a holistic manner and that the different topics complemented each other from the participants’ perspective.

However, the session titled “International Funding Sources” stood out as the most beneficial session with a rate of 21.4%. In addition, the sessions on TÜBİTAK ARDEB application processes and the NEU-BAP project application process were also identified by participants as important and useful components of the program.

When the effect of the symposium on participants’ motivation to submit project proposals was examined, 92.9% of the participants reported an increase in their motivation. Similarly, 92.9% of the participants stated that they had gained information about new funding sources through the event. These findings indicate that the symposium functioned not only as an informative event but also as a platform that encouraged academic productivity and enhanced motivation for project development.

Participants’ evaluations regarding the academic contribution of the symposium revealed a highly positive overall picture. All participants (100%) indicated that the overall content of the symposium was academically beneficial. Likewise, all participants (100%) reported that the event enabled them to gain new knowledge about project writing and application processes. Evaluations concerning the clarity of the presentations and the relevance of the content to academic needs also demonstrated that all participants (100%) expressed positive opinions. These findings indicate that the content of the event was structured in line with the expectations and needs of the participants and that the presentations maintained an appropriate academic level.

The discussion and question–answer session held at the end of the event was also reported to be highly beneficial by participants. All participants (100%) stated that this section was useful. This finding demonstrates that participant interaction during the event was strong and that knowledge transfer was supported not only through one-way presentations but also through interactive communication. In addition, all participants expressed their desire for similar events to be organized again, indicating that the symposium was positively received by the academic community.

When the overall satisfaction level with the event was evaluated, 50% of the participants reported their satisfaction level as “high,” 35.7% as “very high,” and 7.1% as “moderate.” These results suggest that the vast majority of participants evaluated the event positively and that the symposium generally met participants’ expectations.

When responses to the question regarding how frequently such events should be organized were examined, 42.9% of participants indicated that such events should be held twice a year, 35.7% suggested that they could be organized every semester, and 21.4% stated that once a year would be sufficient (Figure 3). These findings suggest that participants have a need for regular knowledge sharing regarding project writing and funding opportunities.

Figure 3. Distribution of participants’ responses to the question “How often do you think such events should be organized?”

An examination of the participants’ open-ended responses reveals that the most beneficial aspects of the event included the sharing of up-to-date information, the introduction of different funding sources, the transfer of experiences, and the creation of a supportive and interactive environment where participants were able to ask questions. In addition, some participants stated that the event provided a platform that broadened their research perspectives and contributed to the development of new project ideas.

Nevertheless, several suggestions were also expressed regarding the improvement of the event. These recommendations included announcing the event earlier, increasing the number of practice-oriented examples, making the presentations easier to follow, and sharing project experiences from different academic disciplines. Such feedback may contribute to strengthening the content and organization of similar events to be held in the future.

Overall, the symposium can be considered an academically beneficial, informative, and motivating event. Considering that the majority of participants had limited experience in research projects, it can be argued that the event created significant awareness particularly in areas such as project writing, access to funding opportunities, and the development of academic collaborations.

Furthermore, the structure of the event content, the clarity of the presentations, and the interactive discussion environment were positively evaluated by participants, and a strong demand emerged for the organization of similar events in the future.

Within the framework of the DESAM Periodic Conference Series, the conference entitled “Renovation and Development Activities at CERN”, held on 26 February 2026, was followed by a feedback survey completed by 10 participants (76.9%). Based on the survey results, participants’ evaluations were examined in terms of the scientific content and scope of the event, presentation duration, question-and-answer session, contribution to knowledge and awareness, overall usefulness of the DESAM Periodic Conferences, frequency of such events, and contribution to institutional visibility.

According to the survey findings, all respondents to the evaluation survey (100%) were academic staff.

Regarding the scientific content and scope of the presentation, 50% of participants reported that the content fully met their expectations, 40% that it largely met their expectations, and 10% that it partially met their expectations (Figure 1). These findings suggest that the choice of topic and scientific framework of the event were largely aligned with participants’ expectations and were positively received by the academic audience.

Figure 1. Percentage distribution of participants’ evaluations of the extent to which the scientific content and scope of the presentation met their expectations.

When the suitability of the presentation duration for conveying the content was assessed, 90% of participants expressed a positive opinion regarding its length. In response to the question of whether they would like the same topic to be addressed again by a different speaker, 20% answered “yes,” 70% answered “no,” and 10% answered “undecided.” This distribution indicates that most participants were satisfied with the current speaker’s presentation and did not perceive a need for the topic to be revisited by a different speaker (Figure 2).

Figure 2. Percentage distribution of participants’ views on having the topic addressed again by a different speaker.

In the evaluation of the question-and-answer session, all participants (100%) reported finding this part of the event useful. This finding indicates that the interactive nature of the event was an important strength from the participants’ perspective and that the opportunity to ask questions directly and participate in discussions enhanced its overall effectiveness. Furthermore, 90% of participants stated that the event increased their knowledge and awareness of the field, while 10% did not agree with this statement (Figure 3). Taken together, these results indicate that the event not only supported interactive participation but also contributed substantially to the development of participants’ knowledge and awareness of the topic.

Figure 3. Percentage distribution of participants’ evaluations of the event’s contribution to increasing their knowledge and awareness of the field.

Regarding the overall usefulness of the DESAM Periodic Conferences, 60% of participants rated the conferences as very useful, 30% as useful, and 10% as moderately useful (Figure 4).

Figure 4. Percentage distribution of participants’ overall satisfaction levels regarding the DESAM Periodic Conferences.

Regarding the more frequent organization of the DESAM Periodic Conference Series, 70% of participants expressed a positive opinion, 20% were undecided, and 10% did not wish the conferences to be held more frequently. (Figure 5). This result indicates that most participants support holding the events more frequently and that there is clear demand for the continuation of the conference series and its organization on a more regular basis.

Figure 5. Percentage distribution of participants’ views on holding the DESAM Periodic Conference Series more frequently.

In the assessment of institutional visibility, all participants (100%) stated that the DESAM Periodic Conference Series increased the visibility of both DESAM and the university (Figure 6). This result indicates that the conference series was perceived as an effective means of supporting institutional recognition and visibility, in addition to facilitating the exchange of scientific knowledge.

Figure 6. Percentage distribution of participants’ evaluations of the contribution of the DESAM Periodic Conference Series to the institutional visibility of DESAM and the university.

Overall, the “Renovation and Development Activities at CERN” event was positively evaluated by the academic staff who completed the evaluation survey in terms of scientific content, presentation duration, question-and-answer interaction, contribution to knowledge and awareness, and institutional visibility. In particular, the fact that all participants found the question-and-answer session useful and stated that the conference series increased the visibility of both DESAM and the university constitutes a key strength of the event. Moreover, the support expressed by 70% of participants for holding the conference series more frequently indicates strong interest in the continuation of similar scientific events.

On 27 October 2025, within the scope of SDGs 4, 8, and 9, the “Fikrî Mülkiyet Farkındalık Toplantısı,” organized in collaboration with DESAM Research Institute and NERITA at Near East University Hospital Classroom 101, was evaluated through a post-event survey. The results of this evaluation are presented below.

At the end of the meeting, a total of 8 questions were directed to 33 participants, and 11 participants completed the survey. Of those who responded, 90.9% were academics, while 9.1% consisted of other participants (students/researchers/non-academics).

Regarding the overall content of the meeting, 72.7% of respondents evaluated it as very beneficial, while 27.3% found it beneficial. The duration and program flow were considered appropriate by 90.9% of participants, whereas 9.1% stated that the topic could have been delivered in a shorter time. All respondents indicated that the topics addressed during the meeting would contribute to their research outputs and patent processes.

According to the survey findings, 63.6% of participants reported that they currently have a product or idea that could potentially qualify as a patent candidate, while 36.4% stated that they do not have such a product or idea at this stage. When asked about their intention to apply for a patent based on such a product or idea, 72.7% indicated that they plan to submit a patent application.

All participants expressed that a similar “Fikrî Mülkiyet Farkındalık Toplantısı” should be organized again. Analysis of the suggested topics for future events revealed a strong demand for more detailed and practice-oriented content, particularly concerning patent and utility model application processes. Specifically, participants emphasized the need for comprehensive explanations of institutional and individual application procedures, application stages, documentation processes, and case-based examples. Additionally, there was a clearly expressed need for practical and guiding information on how to carry out patent applications effectively.

Statistical Overview of Survey Results: