This is also posted on the website:
r2rconf.com
Further comments and suggestions in this forum thread are very welcome!
Summary
Participant feedback for the 2024 Researcher to Reader Conference, which took place at BMA House in London on 20-21 February, demonstrated continued high levels of satisfaction with the event, with delegates rating the Conference very positively.
Of those responding to the survey, over 98-100% rated the Conference relevant, valuable and recommendable (up from 94-98% in 2023), with the content overall receiving 94% positive ratings (up from 89%).
Plenary sessions in the main hall had average scores ranging from 3.1 to 3.7 (out of 4), with an overall average score of 3.3. The lightning talks (offered during the breaks) averaged even better, with the same range, but an average of 3.4 overall. Four out of the five breakout workshops received 100% positive feedback, with the average score for each of the five workshops ranging from 3.3 to 3.9 (out of 4), and an average score overall of 3.6. The structure of the event (timetable, mix of sessions, etc) was positively scored (92%), the food highly regarded (95% positive), and the event administration got 96% positive feedback.
Detailed Report
The survey, completed by over 50% of participants, showed 98% of respondents agreeing that the Conference was relevant to them professionally, and 100% saying it was valuable use of their time. 98% of those responding said they would recommend the event to others – we hope they will do so!
The overall content of the Conference was positively reviewed, with almost all respondents giving very positive scores and comments on the scope, content and delivery of the sessions. A few people suggested we should give more attention to the humanities and to books, and we will definitely aim to improve on this. Including more funder voices was also mentioned, and we would welcome any funders who wanted to join our conversations. We also continue to strive to include more voices from outside Europe and North America, and would welcome ideas and proposals that would help with this.
The plenary sessions at the Conference (including panels, presentations and the debate) received highly positive ratings across the whole timetable. All sessions received an average rating of 3.1 to 3.7 (out of 4). This consistent range of high scores shows that the vigorous curation of the programme is highly effective in ensuring all sessions are of high quality, and are valued by the vast majority of participants. Particularly highly-rated were the opening keynote, the debate, the pair of presentations on transformative agreements, and the closing summary.
The highly interactive workshops were also all positively viewed, receiving an average rating of 3.3 to 3.9 (out of 4). Almost everybody rated their workshop positively, and for two of the five topics on offer, over 85% of the participants rated their workshop ‘Great’. Even in the lowest-scoring workshop, almost 80% of respondents rated it ‘Good’ or ‘Great’. As usual, nobody rated their workshop ‘Poor’.
Some people said that we did not allow enough time for their workshop topic, while others said they wanted to attend multiple shorter workshops, so perhaps we have the balance about right!
The R2R workshops are the most demanding part of our programme, both for the facilitators and the event management, but they are highly rewarding for the participants (and, usually, for the facilitators); we particularly welcome proposals for workshops in our Call for Papers.
The lightning talk sessions also received generally positive feedback, with average scores ranging from 3.1 to 3.7 (out of 4). The lightning talks are proving to be consistently (and increasingly) popular, even though some are purely commercial presentations.
Several people we unhappy that we scheduled the lightning talks during the breaks, but we want to keep commercial presentations optional for the delegates, and it is hard to see how we could integrate about 90 minutes of this material into the main programme. Video recordings of the lighting talks were made available soon after the Conference, so that people who wanted to focus on conversations with fellow participants on the day didn’t have to miss out on this content.
The overall format and timetable for the Conference was, however, positively reviewed by over 90% of respondents. We pack a lot into two days, and some people say that they find the timetable a bit intense (“It was a little bit too busy and full on”), but others seemed to like the energy this generates (“Fast paced, always something happening”). We will try to add a few extra breathing-spaces into the programme in future, while somehow keeping all the content!
The overall dates and duration for the event received 97% positive responses, with people generally liking the format of two full days, although there were some calls for an earlier start and finish on the second day (which was a bit late this year). A couple of people suggested some sort of pre-Conference on the Monday, and we will have a think about whether that might be desirable and manageable one day.
We were also pleased (and relieved) to see that 86% of participants feel that the R2R Conference is good value for money. Events are continuing to get more expensive to deliver, as the cost of venues, catering and other aspects rise, but we try to keep ticket prices affordable, helped by the support from our sponsors.
The event administration, managed by The Events Hub, got 96% positive scores, the same as for 2023, with many very positive comments. There were also positive reactions to our Registration process (96%) and to our Marketing messages (81%) although a couple of people mentioned minor registration problems, or over-long marketing emails, and we will keep an eye on this.
The Conference venue (BMA House) got many positive comments during the event, and the catering received 95% positive ratings in the feedback survey, although a couple of people found the food too ‘experimental’ or ‘spicy’, and some said the coffee was cold. We are glad that our participants share our satisfaction with the venue.
R2R works hard to host a very inclusive event within the scholarly communications community, and this includes the breadth of our scope, the diversity of our participants and the collaborative ethos that we try to maintain during the meeting. Encouragingly, there were many positive comments in the survey responses about this, including:
Overall the survey results, and other feedback, suggest that the 2024 Researcher to Reader Conference was useful, enjoyable and good value for the overwhelming majority of participants. We are continuing to review all the feedback carefully to see what improvements can be made in future, to ensure that we keep up this very positive reputation.
Positive Feedback for R2R 2024
Summary Participant feedback for the 2024 Researcher to Reader Conference, which took place at BMA House in London on 20-21 February, demonstrated continued high levels of satisfaction with the eve…
r2rconf.com
Further comments and suggestions in this forum thread are very welcome!
Summary
Participant feedback for the 2024 Researcher to Reader Conference, which took place at BMA House in London on 20-21 February, demonstrated continued high levels of satisfaction with the event, with delegates rating the Conference very positively.
Of those responding to the survey, over 98-100% rated the Conference relevant, valuable and recommendable (up from 94-98% in 2023), with the content overall receiving 94% positive ratings (up from 89%).
Plenary sessions in the main hall had average scores ranging from 3.1 to 3.7 (out of 4), with an overall average score of 3.3. The lightning talks (offered during the breaks) averaged even better, with the same range, but an average of 3.4 overall. Four out of the five breakout workshops received 100% positive feedback, with the average score for each of the five workshops ranging from 3.3 to 3.9 (out of 4), and an average score overall of 3.6. The structure of the event (timetable, mix of sessions, etc) was positively scored (92%), the food highly regarded (95% positive), and the event administration got 96% positive feedback.
Detailed Report
The survey, completed by over 50% of participants, showed 98% of respondents agreeing that the Conference was relevant to them professionally, and 100% saying it was valuable use of their time. 98% of those responding said they would recommend the event to others – we hope they will do so!
The overall content of the Conference was positively reviewed, with almost all respondents giving very positive scores and comments on the scope, content and delivery of the sessions. A few people suggested we should give more attention to the humanities and to books, and we will definitely aim to improve on this. Including more funder voices was also mentioned, and we would welcome any funders who wanted to join our conversations. We also continue to strive to include more voices from outside Europe and North America, and would welcome ideas and proposals that would help with this.
“A diverse array of topics, all interesting and valuable”
“Overall, great content”
“Excellent mix of high profile speakers”
“Fantastic speakers”
“I am impressed how interesting a conference can be”
“Overall, great content”
“Excellent mix of high profile speakers”
“Fantastic speakers”
“I am impressed how interesting a conference can be”
The plenary sessions at the Conference (including panels, presentations and the debate) received highly positive ratings across the whole timetable. All sessions received an average rating of 3.1 to 3.7 (out of 4). This consistent range of high scores shows that the vigorous curation of the programme is highly effective in ensuring all sessions are of high quality, and are valued by the vast majority of participants. Particularly highly-rated were the opening keynote, the debate, the pair of presentations on transformative agreements, and the closing summary.
The highly interactive workshops were also all positively viewed, receiving an average rating of 3.3 to 3.9 (out of 4). Almost everybody rated their workshop positively, and for two of the five topics on offer, over 85% of the participants rated their workshop ‘Great’. Even in the lowest-scoring workshop, almost 80% of respondents rated it ‘Good’ or ‘Great’. As usual, nobody rated their workshop ‘Poor’.
Some people said that we did not allow enough time for their workshop topic, while others said they wanted to attend multiple shorter workshops, so perhaps we have the balance about right!
The R2R workshops are the most demanding part of our programme, both for the facilitators and the event management, but they are highly rewarding for the participants (and, usually, for the facilitators); we particularly welcome proposals for workshops in our Call for Papers.
“R2R workshops are always a delight”
“The workshops facilitated strong interdisciplinary exchange of knowledge and opinions”
“I thought the workshops were great”
“The workshops facilitated strong interdisciplinary exchange of knowledge and opinions”
“I thought the workshops were great”
The lightning talk sessions also received generally positive feedback, with average scores ranging from 3.1 to 3.7 (out of 4). The lightning talks are proving to be consistently (and increasingly) popular, even though some are purely commercial presentations.
Several people we unhappy that we scheduled the lightning talks during the breaks, but we want to keep commercial presentations optional for the delegates, and it is hard to see how we could integrate about 90 minutes of this material into the main programme. Video recordings of the lighting talks were made available soon after the Conference, so that people who wanted to focus on conversations with fellow participants on the day didn’t have to miss out on this content.
The overall format and timetable for the Conference was, however, positively reviewed by over 90% of respondents. We pack a lot into two days, and some people say that they find the timetable a bit intense (“It was a little bit too busy and full on”), but others seemed to like the energy this generates (“Fast paced, always something happening”). We will try to add a few extra breathing-spaces into the programme in future, while somehow keeping all the content!
The overall dates and duration for the event received 97% positive responses, with people generally liking the format of two full days, although there were some calls for an earlier start and finish on the second day (which was a bit late this year). A couple of people suggested some sort of pre-Conference on the Monday, and we will have a think about whether that might be desirable and manageable one day.
“Appreciate the plenary structure, and that you cram so much into two days”
“Good balance of formats (and breaks)”
“I liked the mix of standalone speakers and panels in the plenaries”
“Two days is the exactly right length”
“Liked the concentrated format”
“February is the perfect time for a conference”
“Good balance of formats (and breaks)”
“I liked the mix of standalone speakers and panels in the plenaries”
“Two days is the exactly right length”
“Liked the concentrated format”
“February is the perfect time for a conference”
We were also pleased (and relieved) to see that 86% of participants feel that the R2R Conference is good value for money. Events are continuing to get more expensive to deliver, as the cost of venues, catering and other aspects rise, but we try to keep ticket prices affordable, helped by the support from our sponsors.
The event administration, managed by The Events Hub, got 96% positive scores, the same as for 2023, with many very positive comments. There were also positive reactions to our Registration process (96%) and to our Marketing messages (81%) although a couple of people mentioned minor registration problems, or over-long marketing emails, and we will keep an eye on this.
“Very easy to register online”
“There were the right number of reminders to register”
“Promotion of R2R is good”
“Amazing staff”
“A great team”
“There were the right number of reminders to register”
“Promotion of R2R is good”
“Amazing staff”
“A great team”
The Conference venue (BMA House) got many positive comments during the event, and the catering received 95% positive ratings in the feedback survey, although a couple of people found the food too ‘experimental’ or ‘spicy’, and some said the coffee was cold. We are glad that our participants share our satisfaction with the venue.
“Food was great”
“Some of the best conference food I've had”
“The food is noticeably better than the typical conference food”
“The lunches were really tasty”
“Some of the best conference food I've had”
“The food is noticeably better than the typical conference food”
“The lunches were really tasty”
R2R works hard to host a very inclusive event within the scholarly communications community, and this includes the breadth of our scope, the diversity of our participants and the collaborative ethos that we try to maintain during the meeting. Encouragingly, there were many positive comments in the survey responses about this, including:
“Good mix of viewpoints, perspectives, and topics”
“The overall ‘vibe’ was friendly and open”
“Compared to other conferences, this feels much more collegiate and collaborative”
“A friendly atmosphere, with a good mix of new and returning delegates”
“Very relaxed and friendly”
“The overall ‘vibe’ was friendly and open”
“Compared to other conferences, this feels much more collegiate and collaborative”
“A friendly atmosphere, with a good mix of new and returning delegates”
“Very relaxed and friendly”
Overall the survey results, and other feedback, suggest that the 2024 Researcher to Reader Conference was useful, enjoyable and good value for the overwhelming majority of participants. We are continuing to review all the feedback carefully to see what improvements can be made in future, to ensure that we keep up this very positive reputation.
