2015 Conference Evaluation Report
Overall Conference Rating
Submitted by 0
0 2015 Evaluation and Assessment Committee: Bridget Euliano (chair) , Derek Marshall (vice-chair), Melody Dale, Michael Fernandez, Kathryn Johns- Masten, Jane Smith and Kathryn Wesley
231 surveys were submitted from 380 conference attendees. Survey respondents could enter a name and email address for a chance to win a $50 gift card. Nancy Bennett from Carroll University was the winner. Below is a summary of the survey results. Conference Rating Respondents were asked to give ratings on a Likert scale of 1 to 5, with 5 being the highest. The overall rating of the 2015 conference was 4.28. This was a bit lower than in previous years.
Facilities and Local Arrangements
The 2015 rating was 4.3, a slight decline from the 2014
location of Fort Worth, which rated a 4.42. However,
this year’s rating was higher than Buffalo’s rating of
3.72 and Nashville’s rating of 3.89 in 2013 and 2012,
Fifty-nine comments were entered on the survey about
local arrangements and facilities mentioning a variety of
issues. Meeting room space appeared to be a large
factor with several attendees noting the rooms were
either too small or too large for particular sessions.
There were also several who mentioned that the
conference was not in Washington D.C. proper and that
there was an overall lack of easy access to tourist
destinations. There were many compliments on the
food and hotel service; however, there were a few
comments that concerned the proper labeling of food
for those with allergies.
The conference website received a weighted average of
4.18. The conference blog was rated less highly at 3.77.
Many of the commenters noted they did not take
advantage of the conference blog.
NASIG-SSP Joint Meeting
Prior to the Opening Session, the 2015 NASIG
conference featured a special joint meeting between
NASIG and SSP (Society for Scholarly Publishing). It
featured three keynote sessions and two other sessions.
The joint meeting was well received by NASIG members
in attendance. Eighty-one percent of respondents said
they benefited from attending the joint meeting.
Seventy-one percent said they would like to see more
joint meetings with other organizations in the future.
Eighty-seven percent of respondents noted they did not
attend a post-conference.
Three vision sessions were a part of the 2015
conference. The average overall ratings for the three
sessions ranged from 3.89 to 4.10. Dorothea Salo’s
presentation style was not to everyone’s liking but
many praised her talk on user privacy as one that made
them really think about an important topic. The
comments on Stephen Rhind-Tutt’s session expressed
passion about open access issues. Many respondents
appreciated the questions and discussion his open
access views generated. Some commenters felt that
Anne Kenney’s talk on electronic journal preservation
should have been a strategy session as opposed to a
NASIG offered thirty-one concurrent sessions during the
30th annual conference. Twenty-four of those (77%)
received an overall rating of 4.0 or higher. The number
of sessions offered was lower than last year’s
conference in Fort Worth. Most comments were
positive, or offered specific, constructive criticism of an
individual session. Feedback will be shared with
presenters upon request.
2015 marked the third year of the Great Ideas
Showcase, formerly called poster sessions. While only
four participants were featured in 2014, there were
seven in 2015. The overall rating for the Great Ideas
Showcase was 3.72. The showcase sessions did not
generate many evaluation comments. Some
commenters felt the showcase should not have been
held at the same time as the snapshot sessions.
The 30th conference was the second year to offer
snapshot sessions, “designed for 5-7 minute talks in
which projects, workflows, or ideas are presented.”
There were six sessions, two of which were rated 4.0 or
higher. Due to an oversight by the Evaluation &
Assessment Committee, there was no comment box for
the snapshot sessions.
The survey requested that responders rate and
comment on ideas for future programming. Comments
were entered with general and specific ideas for various
types of sessions. A detailed summary of feedback will
be submitted to the board.
The First Timer’s/Mentoring Reception received a rating
of 4.37. An overwhelming 93% would like to see this
event continue. Comments submitted about the event
were overwhelmingly positive, praising the mentors and
The Business Meeting received a rating of 4.0; however,
the comments were varied. Low attendance was noted.
1 -To ease the reading of the demographic chart, several
categories offered on the survey were condensed:
Academic libraries contains: College Library, Community
College Library, University Library
Vendors and Publishers contains: Automated Systems
Vendor, Binder, Book Vendor, Database Provider,
Publisher, Subscription Vendor or Agency
The Vendor Expo received a rating of 3.68 with the
majority of survey respondents (88%) wanting to see it
continue. The majority of the negative feedback
consisted of the space being too small for the event.
Vendors and Publishers
As in previous surveys, academic library employees
continue to represent the largest group of respondents
at 72%. This is a marginally higher percentage than was
held by academic libraries for the 2014 conference at
Respondents were asked to “describe your work” using
as many of the twenty-four given choices as necessary
(including “Other”). 2015 marks the second year that
“electronic resources librarian” garnered the highest
number of responses (113). Serials Librarian (96),
Acquisitions Librarian (79), Catalog/Metadata Librarian
Specialized Libraries contains: Law Library, Medical
Library, Special or Corporate Library
Government Libraries contains: Government, National,
or State Library
Others contains: Public Library, Student, Other
Several other categories were available, but not selected by a
(63), and Collection Development Librarian (51)
rounded out the top five responses.
When asked about the number of years of serials
related experience, “More than 20 years” received the
majority at 72 responses.
More than 20 years
Less than 1 year
Forty percent of respondents noted they have attended
one to five past conferences.
PAST CONFERENCES ATTENDED
More than 20