OPEN READINGS 2012 conference feedback

This questionnaire is for participants and observers of the 55th scientific conference for students of physics and nature sciences "Open Readings 2012"

OPEN READINGS 2012 conference feedback
परिणाम सार्वजनिक रूप से उपलब्ध हैं

You were participating in the "Open Readings" conference as: ✪

Where are you from?

How many times you have participated in "Open Readings" before? ✪

What was your participation motivation? (select not more than 3 answers) ✪

How would you evaluate conference activities? (1 - very bad; 5 - very good)

did not attend12345
Dr. Jean-luc Doumont "Structuring your research paper"
Dalia Vasiliauskienė "How to give a good presentation"
Oral Session O1
Oral Session O2
Oral Session O3
Poster session P1
Excursion
Oral Session O4
Oral Session O5
Oral Session O6
Poster session P2
Conference party
Nerijus Kochanskas "Under the dome of stars"
Dr. Stanislava Bartašiūtė "What do we know about the universe?"

Do you think that students' contributions should be refereed more strictly?

If you were a presenter, did the number of attending lecturers/scientists satisfy you?

How would you evaluate the organization of the conference? (1 - very bad; 5 - very good)

no opinion/do not care12345
Amount of information about the event before the conference and its availability
Conference website
Conference programme and following of it
Conference abstract book
Communication with the participants by e-mail/skype
Amount of information about the event during the conference and its availability
Accommodation in Vilnius University dormitories
Quality of the organization in general
Chairmans of oral sessions

Please indicate the most significant shortcomings of conference organization

Please indicate the most significant advantages of the organization and the conference in general

What would be your suggestions for the organizing committee for Open Readings 2012 ?

Are you going to participate in the next year's conference?

Would you consider writing a "Open Readings" conference proceedings paper to a journ- factor smaller than 0,24 if there was such possibility?

Was this questionnaire too long?