Event Feedback

Repository Fringe 17 – satisfaction survey results

Thank you all for completing our repository fringe 17 feedback survey. Here are some representative quotes of what you liked, what could have gone better and what you would love to see in the future:

1. What you really liked….

Programme

  • ‘The structure of the programme and the thematic distribution of presentations.’
  • ‘Wide range of expertise represented, right from national and international policy leaders up to librarians, information and technical people involved in running individual repositories.’
  • ‘Great, meaty programme of diverse, authoritative, engaging speakers. Broad themes radiating out from the main focus of the repository; I felt challenged to think about the purpose and uses of repositories in different ways. Great to have researchers involved as speakers.’
  • ‘Well organised, all organisers were helpful and welcoming, content/presentations were all chaired and curated. I liked the 10×10 presentations, total win to have the conference at the same time as the fringe fest’
  • ‘I enjoyed the workshops. The inclusion of Chris Banks was important. Hearing about global issues very relevant also.’
  • ‘Good range of topics presented, excellent venue/facilities.’
  • ‘Flexibility to include additional breakout sessions.’
  • ‘Really god mix of presenters.’
  • ‘Knowledgeable speakers and the positive vibe of the conference.’
  • ‘Variety of content, presentation on UK scholarly comms licence.’
  • ‘Good split interest groups – e.g., having eprints, pure user group, OJS etc’
  • ‘Chris Banks, Paul Ayres. The mixture of formats was very good (e.g. keynotes, 10X10, BoFs, panels)’
  • ‘I really appreciated the 10 x 10 sessions – it was a great way of hearing about small projects and initiatives happening at other institutions. Often talks at conferences are stretched out longer than they need to be, but these were just right.’
  • ‘The Wiki data hackathon. Lots of interesting talks and workshops. Especially the one by Christ Banks on policy.’
  • ‘Diversity of speakers and discussion groups.’
  • ‘Impressive speakers but informal atmosphere, great location.’
  • ‘There was a good mix of speakers working with repositories. The 10×10 presentation gave an introduction to a good variety of topics. Very easy to get to and great venue and catering.’
  • ‘A very wide representation of the main initiatives in the domain among the event attendance. Certain speakers were truly excellent.’
  • ‘Some of the Keynotes plus the break-out sessions. Mid conference drinks in pub was excellent – I met loads new people.’
  • Wikidata sessions!

Community

  • ‘Unique community.’
  • ‘Shared knowledge, location, UK’s LIS environment.’
  • ‘Ability to network and discuss topics of interest.’
  • ‘Friendly, welcoming group. Good keynotes.’
  • ‘The people who came, both attending and presenting, and their willingness to engage.’
  • ‘Great opportunity to network, interesting talks.’
  • ‘The feeling of being on the midst of a community.’

2. How can we improve?

Content suggestions

  • ‘More information on the pros and cons of existing RDM systems.
  • ‘This is only a might – not a must: something from a funder around OA & data sharing requirements (e.g. around audit and actual monitoring requirements).’
  • Fewer formal presentations, as good as they all were, especially Politics of Open.’
  • ‘Personally, I’ll like a separate or more defined stream on RDM and research data and repositories, was a bit too much just on OA publishing this year.’
  • ‘Making a bit more emphasis on the work being done on Open Access by institutions.’
  • ‘Greater demographic diversity among keynote speakers.’
  • ‘More time for the wikidata sessions’
  • More hack style sessions – coordinating breaks out sessions to result in outputs, like scoping project for a tool-kit, best practice project on a topic… something like that?!?’
  • ‘Something around the role of corporate offerings in this area. I think the sector may be moving away from open source platforms in favour of more slick and agile corporate/publisher offerings. Whether we like it or not!’
  • ‘More on copyright.’
  • ‘A session dedicated to UK-SCL next time round.’
  • ‘Really think we need to get researchers engaged more – was good to have keynote on day 2 from a researcher, but need more e.g. a panel discussion, maybe between researchers with differing views on open access or the journal publishing process or open data; would have been great if we had had researchers in the room when discussing UK-SCL to have a good debate’
  • ‘Think having REF2021 as one strand/theme next year might be good once the consultation process has ended this autumn- good to share views/notes.’
  • ‘The widening remit of OA and repository teams eg support for OA publishing, supporting multiple platforms. Student engagement eg PGRs with CRIS profiles and what this means for the ‘repository’
  • ‘Repository interoperability, new features. Reintroduce some kind of developer challenge?’
  • ‘A hands on workshop on how to make our repositories more visible, (top tips), how we can use tdm. REF reporting and repositories.’
  • ‘Something on how to get Research Offices on board (political dimension). Something on how to evolve a library structure to better support these new directions.’
  • ‘Using repositories to amplify an institution’s research outputs was mentioned a few times over the two days, but I’d be interested in hearing more about how institutions do this.’
  • ‘More discussion sessions and formation of groups to take community themes forward.’
  • ‘Enjoyed hearing from a researcher this year, Andrew Millar, feedback from the user community would be interesting/useful.’
  • ‘I think there should be more about what can be done with research data after it goes into a repository. I think putting more of the slides and posters online a full week in advance of the event, so that attendees have a chance to think up good questions would be good. And providing a large electronic timer to show speakers how much time they have left (particularly for lightning talks) would be a good thing too. Allowing the submission of videos and websites to the conference could also be interesting.’
  • ‘It would be good to see how different institutions have overcome similar problems with their repositories (e.g. how do they accommodate arts-based deposits in a way which shows off the outputs?)’
  • ‘More from users of repositories and what they want from a repository.’
  • ‘Hands on events, being able to see solutions in a working environment.’
  • ‘More data management.
  • ‘Speakers from outside the repository circle ie academics and publishers.
  • ‘A round table could be an interesting format for a discussion on a specific topic on Open Access or Research Data Management implementation.
  • ‘More International context – comparing UK experience with other countries.’
  • ‘Try and encourage more end users‘.
  • Informal, small scale repositories [whispers] maybe even transitory repositories. My interest is in management and dissemination of learning materials, & large scale, formal repositories seem not to have worked, but there is still a lot that can be done on a per-project or departmental basis. This may also be relevant to research data (before the data is packaged up for publication).’
  • ‘OA OA OA – more of how to break the stranglehold of publishers please. Really enjoyed the Wikidata workshop – more hands-on workshops desired. I realise data has all the buzz but research publications are important.’
  • ‘More workshops aimed at providing introductory technical skills for people who are relatively inexperienced in repository (and other) APIs would be really useful.’
  • ‘More on publishing via repositories as a challenge to the current publishing process; I particularly enjoyed Andrea Wallace’s talk on copyright issues – perhaps we could have more talks on philosophical treatment of issues we deal with in a very practical way on a daily basis, year goals, commitments, agenda and evaluation.’
  • ‘For the few years it would be useful to discuss HEFCE requirements.’

3. How did you hear about Repository Fringe?

UKCORR 9
DCC website & mailing lists 5
Through work/colleagues/word of mouth 11
Jisc mailing lists 3
Other mailing lists and repofringe promotion 11
Twitter 4
Invitation 3

4. Do you have any more comments about Repository Fringe?

  • ‘This was one of the best conferences I have attended in a long time. Focused and deep, I learnt a lot.’
  • ‘John McIntyre Conference Centre is a much better venue.’
  • ‘Even though everyone is very friendly, it’s still quite a daunting environment for people who are relatively new to repository work!’
  • ‘I felt the conference lacked its usual buzz. There seemed to be fewer delegates. There were also fewer “product” stalls.’
  • ‘Really inspiring and engaging range of speakers.’
  • ‘Thank you for putting it all together, and for hosting it. I would note that for questions 11 and 12 there is no not applicable – don’t use dspace!’
  • ‘Perhaps to have water available during coffee breaks.’
  • ‘Minor quibble that the main talks on Friday afternoon were only wikidata sessions, found myself at a bit of a loose end. Organisation etc were up to the usual very high standard!’
  • ‘It was ace.’
  • ‘By widening its sponsor base, the event might be able to do without the registration fee in future editions.’
  • ‘Overall enjoyable and like any conference, some presentations were a hit or miss. Well organised event and would recommend future Fringes to all.’
  • ‘I expected more data content, probably because I miss read the programme!
  • Bagpipers on the way to day one were a bonus.’
  • ‘There seemed to be less variety of topics this year. I wanted to attend the BOF on the REF and there was insufficient room/chairs.’