Rethinking library. User survey 2023

Methodical procedure

• Online survey was addressed to all students and employees of the TUC as well as external users.
• Request for participation was sent via the TUC mailinglist, informal distribution lists to faculties/departments and FSR, as well as via the website, social media channels and information pillars in the university
• The response rate does not correspond to the population. The conclusions cannot be considered representative.
• Response rates of online surveys tend to be low; also in our survey it was to be assumed that persons contacted do not consent to the processing of personal data, that the mail with the request to participate is directly deleted due to suspicion of spam, or that they cancel the questionnaire response due to the time involved.
• Pre-tests were carried out to check the comprehensibility of the questions and to be able to better limit the time required to answer the questions.
• The survey was created in German and English with the tool SURVEY (based on LimeSurvey) of the Bildungsportal Sachsens (BPS), because there is an order processing contract between TUC and BPS.
• The questionnaire was created modularly, so that not all groups of users were shown the same groups of questions, thus the population varies per question.
• The survey was conducted from Jan. 23, 2023, to Feb. 15, 2023.
• Response rate

  

Usage

• Overall, users are (very) satisfied with both on-site and online usage. Individual aspects such as the use of duplication services and the creation of additional areas for group work need improvement.
• Individual services in both on-site and online use are not known to users. hese include acquisition suggestion, the university's internal document delivery service and interlibrary loan. On-site users are not yet fully familiar with the zones (group work - individual work) and equipment (multifunctional devices, lockers, return machines).

Media stock

• Good equipment with e-books and e-journals is important to the respondents. Printed books are also still relevant. Printed journals are losing importance. The importance of standards and loose-leaf collections depends on the subject area. All user groups would like to see an expansion of electronic literature offerings.

Research tools

• (Scientific) search engines and the library catalog are the most frequently used research tools. Subject databases, interdisciplinary databases, academic networks and the shadow library Sci-Hub play a secondary role.

Training offerings

• Existing training offerings in presence and online are largely unknown and unused. Exceptions are library introductions organized as part of the orientation week for freshers, as well as offerings at TUCtag.
• All user groups would like to see additional training offers in the areas of e-media, open science/open access, and digital skills (e.g., literature management).
• All user groups prefer short, primarily digital training offers such as explanatory videos or short online training courses. Scientists want support from the library only outside their own courses.

Advisory services

• The classic reference desk as well as e-mail and telephone consultation are well known. The bookable advisory service "Book a Librarian" and individual advisory services on special topics, on the other hand, are little known. Accordingly, the use of these services by the respondents is low.

Communication and information channels

• The preferred information channel is the library's websites. Only a few users inform themselves about current events via social media channels. Additionally, classic formats such as mailing lists/newsletters are desired.

Perception of the library and the staff

• The library staff is accessible, helpful, friendly and competent. The library and archives are modern, open, friendly, chic and secure, but not necessarily intuitive but rather complex.

Publishing | (all questions asked only to scientists)

• In the process of scientific publishing of research results, the reputation of the publisher where published, the visibility of the place of publication, a frequent citation of the publication organ, the publication costs, the quality assurance in the publication process of the chosen journal, the support during the publication process by library, the workflow in the publisher and the workflow in TUC (funding) are important. In contrast, the support during the publication process by the university library is not relevant for all scientists.
• For the majority of the participating scientists, publishing under Open Access is of great importance. The journals in which they publish should be high-quality journals. It would be ideal if the current publication media could simply be converted to open access.
• In order to assess the quality of a publication offer, the respondents consider the way authors, reviewers and editors are recruited, the impact factor of the journal, the indexing of the journal in Scopus, Web of Science or other databases, the duration of the peer review, the feedback on the outcome of the review to all participants, the type of review (open and closed) (very) important. The rejection rate of submitted articles as well as the composition of the editorial board are not highly relevant for all scientists.
• The funding of open access publications in the form of journal articles is rated as (very) important. The publication of articles in anthologies or complete monographs/collective volumes is less relevant in comparison.
• A good majority of respondents are against authors financially contributing to OA publication themselves. Limiting the number of funding per author or per cost center is rejected by a majority. Young scientists and scholars should be given priority for funding.
• Opinions on the amount of own contributions to OA publications in journals or books/collective volumes vary widely, from 0 EUR to 3000 EUR per publication.
• Across disciplines, OA publishing agreements with Wiley and Springer Nature are rated as (very) important by more than half of the respondents. Other publishing agreements are rated as relevant depending on the subject. Individuals would like to see an additional publishing agreement with Elsevier.
• Almost half of the respondents are unaware of the secondary publication. Accepted manuscripts are kept after publication by only a few. The rights of use granted to the author in publishing agreements are reviewed by the majority before signing.

University Press | (all questions asked only to scientists)

• The university publishing house Chemnitz is known to a majority, but only a few scientists have published in this publishing house. Reasons for this are the lack of knowledge about the publishing house, a low reputation of the publishing house as well as previous missing occasions of publishing. The publishing house has been noted via the websites or by word-of-mouth.

Open Science | (all questions asked only to scientists)

• Just under a quarter of respondents are aware of the University Library's Open Science team.
• Scientists have the most experience with Open Access publishing of research output when it comes to publishing research results (in the form of journals or monographs), followed at a great distance by software/code, research data and Open Educational Resources.
• Most relevant to the scientists surveyed are the open science topics of open access publishing, open research data, and open source. OER still plays a certain role, while Open Evaluation and Citizen Science are less relevant.
• Most requested are library trainings on publishing theses online, copyright and citation law, recognizing fake journals, publishing research data, and open source. The topics "Bibliometric Analysis" and "Citizen Science" are desired by only a few. Preferred delivery formats are short online training courses and individual consulting services.

University Archives

• Less than half of the respondents are aware of the TUC's university archive. Only 32 of the respondents have used it. The majority of non-users state that archival sources are not relevant to their work or studies.
• The majority of users are (very) satisfied with the provision of archival material, the archive's Internet presence, and the speed and scope of the response to inquiries.
• Both the establishment of a digital reading room, work with digital files and photography by users are rated by archive users as important future services.
• For communication with the archive, the majority of respondents would like to use a web form. E-mail as a means of communication (encrypted, unencrypted) is also a possibility.

Methodical procedure

• We placed a flipchart with questions updated weekly or fortnightly at the library entrance during the summer semester 2023. Depending on the type of question, library visitors had three options for answering or voting:
  1. Letter Box: Answers were written down on an answer card and dropped into a provided mail box.
  2. Poll Box (wooden beads): A predetermined answer to a question was agreed to by dropping a wooden bead into a transparent bottle.
  3. Poll Box (sticky dots): By placing a sticky dot on the flipchart, people voted for an answer option
• (Sticky Dots): By placing a sticky dot on the flipchart, people voted for an answer option.
• The results are documented in these diagrams:

Question 9 on the flip chart asked for a love or breakup letter to the library. Excerpts from selected letters are documented in the following images. Thank you very much for your kind and also the less kind words!

Question 12 on the flip chart asked for what the security and library staff wishes from the library guests. We have summarized the answers and present them in a love letter to our users. This is also to be understood as a response to the love letters that reached us before.