ZBT Research School - Application

Umfrage

Evaluation der ZBT RS nach 12 Monaten

Personal Information

Which department do you work in?*

123456789

Since when do you work at ZBT?*

less than 1 year

1-2 years

3-4 years

more than 4 years

Since when have you been a member of the ZBT Research School*

since its beginning (12+ months)

since more than 6 months

since less than 6 months

Which describes best your role at ZBT?*

technician or engineer

scientific employee without PhD degree

enrolled PhD student

postdoctoral researcher (fixed-term)

senior scientist (permanent)

science manager

group leader

department leader

other (please specify)

If you feel you do not fit any of the above categories please name your role here

General Feedback about the Research School

How regularly do you attend the RS seminar*

almost every week

most of the times

probably about half of the seminars

only sometimes

rarely

never

If you cannot attend the RS seminar regularly, what are the main reasons?

I have conflicting research deadlines or lab work that take priority.

I have other mandatory meetings (e.g., department, project, or supervisory meetings) at the same time.

The topics covered in the seminar are often not directly relevant to my research.

My overall workload is too high, making it difficult to prioritize attending.

The seminar format (e.g., presentations, discussions) does not align with how I prefer to engage with research.

I do not find the discussions engaging or useful for my work.

I do not feel comfortable asking questions or actively participating.

(select all that apply)

How many times have you presented a Project Report*

How many times have you presented a Journal Club*

On a scale from 0 (no value) to 10 (extremely valuable), how would you rate the ZBT Research School for...

Providing insights into research from other departments?*

Receiving constructive feedback on my own research?*

Encouraging engagement with scientific literature?*

Critically reflecting on my own research direction and methods?*

Strengthening collaborations across departments?*

Improving my scientific presentation and communication skills*

What do you think about offering the weekly seminar in a hybrid format?*

I strongly oppose hybrid seminars

I prefer in-person only

I have concerns but think hybrid could work

I rather support hybrid

I fully support hybrid participation

Other (please specify below)

If hybrid is introduced, how should remote participation be handled?*

Remote participation should only be allowed when people have a valid reason (e.g., sick, childcare, travel).

Remote participation should be open to everyone, but joining remotely from ZBT premises should not be allowed.

Remote participation should be open to everyone, including those on-site, if they prefer.

I don’t think hybrid should be offered at all.

Other (please specify below)

If hybrid is introduced, who should be responsible for setting it up?*

I accept that each speaker is responsible for setting up the hybrid connection and arriving early (~15 min).

I support hybrid but don’t think speakers should be responsible for the setup—so I would rather not introduce hybrid at all.

I don’t support hybrid seminars in any form, so this question is irrelevant to me.

Other (please specify below)

(Given management’s position, hybrid will only be an option if speakers take full responsibility for setting it up.)

Any other/additional comments on the seminar format?

Journal Club

Please rate the following statements on a scale from 0 (disagree fully) to 10 (agree fully).

The quality of Journal Club presentations is high.*

Journal Club presentations by others are relevant and useful for my work.*

The selected papers mostly are relevant and appropriate for discussion.*

Presenters usually effectively explain the key findings and their relevance.*

Presenters usually critically analyze the strengths and weaknesses of the paper they present.*

The discussions after the Journal Club are insightful.*

The Journal Club made me read more scientific articles.*

The Journal Club made me read scientific articles more critically or thoroughly.*

Preparing the Journal Club presentation was difficult for me

(Please only answer if you have already presented a Journal Club)

How did you select a paper the for Journal Club presentation?

The topic is closely related to my research

The paper represents a breakthrough or high-impact work

The methodology is particularly innovative

The paper challenges existing paradigms or provides a new perspective

My supervisor or colleagues recommended it

Other (please specify below)

(Only if you have presented in the Journal Club; select all that apply)

Other criteria

Did preparing the Journal Club presentation improve your understanding of the publication?*

Yes, significantly, but it was not worth the time

Yes, significantly, and it was time well spent

Only to some extend

No, not really

did not present in the Journal Club yet

How long did it take you to prepare the Journal Club presentation*

less than 2 hours

2-4 hours

4-8 hours

more than 8 hours

did not present yet in the Journal Club

Any additional comments or feedback on the Journal Club? Any improvements you would like to suggest?

Project Report

Please rate the following statements on a scale from 0 (disagree fully) to 10 (agree fully).

The quality of Project Report presentations is high.*

The presented research topics are relevant and appropriate for discussion.*

Presenters usually explain the background, key findings, and conclusions clearly.*

Presenters critically analyze the strengths, weaknesses, and limitations of their research results.*

Presenters justify their choice of methods and discuss potential sources of error or uncertainty.*

The discussions after Project Report presentations are insightful and constructive.*

The Project Reports help me understand research approaches from other departments and encourage cross-departmental exchange.*

The feedback given during Project Reports is useful and helps improve the presented research.*

On a scale from 0 (very easy) to 10 (very difficult), how difficult was to prepare your presentation?

(Please only answer if you have already presented a Project Report)

How did you select the results for your Project Report presentation?

It directly referred to a single funded research project.

It was mostly based on a funded project, but I complemented it with other relevant work.

It presented the status of my PhD work.

It was a planned or envisioned research project.

It provided a general overview of my research field.

It showcased significant findings from my research.

It illustrated a specific challenge or open question in my work.

My supervisor or colleagues suggested the content.

Other (please specify below)

(Only if you have presented in the Project Report; select all that apply)

Other criteria

Did preparing and presenting your Project Report help you critically assess your research and identify gaps or areas for improvement?*

Yes, significantly, but it was not worth the time

Yes, significantly, and it was time well spent

Only to some extend

No, not really

did not present in the Journal Club yet

Did preparing your Project Report presentation help you reorganize your research results or refine your ideas?*

Yes, significantly, and it improved the overall structure of my project.

Yes, to some extent—it helped clarify certain aspects but did not lead to major changes.

Not really—it mainly reinforced what I had already structured.

No, it did not influence the organization of my results or ideas.

Did not present in Project Report yet.

How long did it take you to prepare the Project Report presentation*

less than 2 hours

2-4 hours

4-8 hours

more than 8 hours

did not present yet in the Journal Club

Any additional comments or feedback on the Project Report? Any improvements you would like to suggest?

Summer Retreat

Did you attend the 2024 Summer Retreat?*

Yes, and I found it worthwhile overall

Yes, but I think the format or content could be improved

Yes, I mainly attended for networking and team building

Yes, I mainly attended for the technical training

No, but I wanted to and couldn't due to scheduling conflicts

No, because the format did not appeal to me

No, because I did not find the topic relevant to my work

No, I was not part of the Research School back then

Did the retreat topics feel relevant to your research, and do you think the retreat contributed to your professional development?

Yes, both the topics and overall experience were highly relevant and valuable.

Yes, the topics were relevant, but I didn’t gain much for my professional development.

Yes, it contributed to my professional development, but the topics weren’t directly relevant to my research.

No, neither the topics nor the retreat contributed much to my research or professional development.

(please only answer if you were at the 2024 retreat)

Did the retreat lead to any new collaborations or research ideas?

Yes, I initiated or strengthened a collaboration that may impact my research.

Yes, I exchanged ideas that I have already applied or plan to apply in my work.

Yes, but mostly informal discussions, nothing concrete yet.

No, but I found the discussions inspiring.

No, I didn’t gain anything research-related from the retreat.

(please only answer if you were at the 2024 retreat)

On a scale from 0 (very poor) to 10 (excellent), how would you rate the value of the 2024 retreat?

(please only answer if you were at the 2024 retreat)

What aspects of the 2024 retreat did you find particularly useful or impactful?

(please only answer if you were at the 2024 retreat)

What aspects of the retreat could be improved?

(please only answer if you were at the 2024 retreat)

What should be the main focus of future retreats?*

Hands-on technical training (e.g., Python, statistics, data analysis)

Broader scientific skill development (e.g., writing, presenting, career planning)

Research discussions and peer feedback (e.g., presenting work-in-progress, structured brainstorming)

Interdisciplinary collaboration (e.g., joint project development, exploring synergies across departments)

Networking and team building (e.g., group challenges, structured networking sessions)

Leisure and relaxation activities (e.g., outdoor activities, informal socializing)

(Select up to two)

Would you find it beneficial to include external speakers or trainers?*

Yes, a full external-led workshop would be valuable.

Yes, but only for selected sessions while keeping most internal.

Maybe, but only if the speaker is highly relevant to our work.

No, I prefer the retreat to focus on internal discussions and skills.

No idea.

What adjustments would you suggest for the format or general setup of the retreat?

(e.g., duration, timing within the year, balance between structured sessions and free time, location, overnight stay vs. local event)

What topics or content should future retreats cover?

(e.g., advanced data analysis, experimental methods, open science, industry collaboration, soft skills, funding opportunities)

Annual Symposium

Did you attend the 2024 Symposium?*

Yes, and I found it worthwhile overall

Yes, but I think the format or content could be improved

Yes, I mainly attended for networking and discussions

Yes, I mainly attended for the research talks and posters

No, but I wanted to and couldn't due to scheduling conflicts

No, because the format did not appeal to me

No, because the topics were not relevant to my work

No, I was not part of the Research School back then

Other (please specify in the text field at the end of the section).

What aspects of the 2024 symposium did you find particularly useful or impactful?

(please only answer if you were at the 2024 retreat)

On a scale from 0 (very poor) to 10 (excellent), how would you rate the value of the 2024 symposium?

(please only answer if you were at the 2024 retreat)

Did the symposium topics feel relevant to your research, and do you think it contributed to your professional development?

Yes, both the topics and overall experience were highly relevant and valuable.

Yes, the topics were relevant, but I didn’t gain much for my professional development.

Yes, it contributed to my professional development, but the topics weren’t directly relevant to my research.

No, neither the topics nor the symposium contributed much to my research or professional development.

No, but I wanted to and couldn't due to scheduling conflicts

No, because the format did not appeal to me

No, because the topics were not relevant to my work

Other (please specify in the text field at the end of the section).

(please only answer if you have attended the 2024 symposium)

Did the symposium lead to any new collaborations, project ideas, or follow-up discussions?

Yes, I initiated or strengthened a collaboration that may impact my research.

Yes, I exchanged ideas that I have already applied or plan to apply in my work.

Yes, but mostly informal discussions, nothing concrete yet.

No, but I found the discussions inspiring.

No, but I wanted to and couldn't due to scheduling conflicts

No, I didn’t gain anything research-related from the symposium.

Other (please specify in the text field at the end of the section).

(please only answer if you have attended the 2024 symposium)

How do you feel about the length and format of the symposium?*

The current format (one full day) works well.

The length is good, but it would be better as two half-days (e.g. noon to noon; like the Wasserstofftage).

It was too short, and should be expanded to more than one day.

It was too long, and should be less than one full day.

Other (please specify in the text field at the end of the section).

Do you plan to submit an abstract for future symposiums, and what are your considerations?*

Yes, and I would prefer to give a short talk.

Yes, but I would prefer to present a poster.

I am unsure if my research is of high enough quality for submission.

I am more on the engineering/application side and feel my work may not fit well.

I feel uncomfortable presenting in front of an audience.

I struggle with presenting in English.

I do research but prefer to present at different types of events.

Other (please specify in the text field at the end of the section).

Do you have any general/other suggestions for improving future symposiums?

PhD Peer Mentoring Program

What do you think about the PhD Peer Mentoring Program?*

The what? (I have never heard of this program.)

I have a PhD already.

I have heard of it but don’t know the details.

I don’t plan to do a PhD, so I’m not interested.

I plan to do a PhD but haven’t found the time to engage with the program yet.

I plan to do a PhD but don’t feel ready yet (e.g., still developing my dissertation idea).

I plan to do a PhD but my current project work isn’t well aligned with my research interests.

Don't need that. I feel I can manage my PhD without it.

I am in the program (2024 Accelerator).

I am in the program (2025 Accelerator).

I want to join in 2026.

It wasn’t available when I started my PhD.

If you participated in the PhD Peer Mentoring Program, which aspects were most helpful to you?*

Structured accountability (regular check-ins, reminders, staying on track)

Motivation boost (seeing others progress, positive peer pressure, encouragement to stay engaged)

Encouragement and confidence-building (e.g., reassurance about research ability, feeling more prepared, better understanding of what doing a PhD means)

Experience exchange and discussions with other prospective PhD students

Guidance from PhD holders on career perspectives, research strategies, and expectations

Information on dissertation procedures and formal requirements

Discussions with Harry about my PhD topic and/or potential supervision

Support in finding a supervisor or clarifying supervision conditions

Help in refining my PhD topic and research direction

Help in structuring my PhD project and setting milestones

I didn’t find it particularly useful.

I did not participate.

(Select up to 3)

Do you have any general/other suggestions for improving the PhD Peer Mentoring Program or for supporting dissertations at ZBT?

Research Data Management

How familiar are you with Pit’s activities related to research data management (RDM)?*

I know his work quite well and understand his role.

I have some insights into what he does.

I have heard of his role but only have a rough idea.

I have no idea what he does.

Who is Pit?

What best describes your collaboration with Pit on research data management?*

I have not collaborated with him and don’t see a need.

I have briefly interacted with him but don’t require more support.

I haven’t worked with him much yet but plan to in the future.

I have actively collaborated with him on RDM topics.

RDM activities mostly goes through my department coordinator, and that’s sufficient.

Other (please specify in the text box at the bottom)

What holds you back from improving your research data management practices?*

I do not document my research in elabFTW.

I use elabFTW, but not consistently.

I don’t know how to use elabFTW properly.

I don’t see a need to document in elabFTW.

I do not store my data in the MongoDB database.

I use the MongoDB, but only in a limited way.

I don’t know how to store my data in MongoDB.

I don’t see a need to store my data in MongoDB.

I don’t use Python (or another programming language) to transfer, process, or analyze my data.

I use Python (or another programming language), but I don’t fully automate my workflow.

I don’t know how to use Python (or another programming language) for data processing.

Other (please specify below).

(Select all that apply)

What aspects of research data management would you like more support or guidance on?*

Document experiments efficiently in elabFTW.

Using MongoDB for structured data storage and retrieval.

Automating data transfer and processing with Python.

Automating data transfer and processing with another software.

Organizing and structuring research data better.

Understanding and applying FAIR principles (Findability, Accessibility, Interoperability, Reusability).

Best practices for metadata and documentation.

Open data and publishing datasets.

Compliance with funding and institutional policies.

Long-term data storage and security.

Other (please specify below).

(Select all that apply)

Do you have any other/general suggestions for improving research data management?

Good Research Practice and Manuscript Support

How familiar are you with Maria’s activities related to manuscript support and good research practice?*

I know her work quite well and understand his role.

I have some insights into what she does.

I have heard of her role but only have a rough idea.

I have no idea what she does.

Who is Maria?

What best describes your collaboration with Maria on research quality and publications?*

I have not collaborated with her and don’t see a need.

I have briefly interacted with her but don’t require more support.

I haven’t worked with her much yet but plan to in the future.

I have actively collaborated with her on manuscript or research quality topics.

Other (please specify in the text box at the bottom)

What holds you back from improving your academic writing and publishing?*

I don’t do much research writing—I focus more on engineering or applied work.

I don’t have high-quality data (e.g., missing replicates, inconsistent measurements).

I lack access to instruments or test rigs, so I struggle to get publishable results.

I don’t have time or don’t know how to process my data properly.

I don’t have time or don’t know how to visualize my data effectively.

I don’t have time or don’t know how to conceptualize my work into a publishable structure.

I don’t have time or don’t know how to write a manuscript.

I don’t know how the publishing process works.

I struggle with writing in English.

I’m not sure which journals to target for publication.

I don’t feel motivated to publish more—there are no strong incentives.

Other (please specify below).

What aspects of manuscript support and research quality would you find most useful?*

Guidance on structuring and writing research papers

Support in acquiring and processing high-quality data for publication

Best practices for data presentation and visualization

Understanding ethical and publication standards

Choosing the right journal and understanding the publication process and journal metrics

Strategic planning for publications (e.g. when to publish?)

Handling the peer-review process

Improving scientific English and writing style

Other (please specify below).

How can manuscript support and research quality initiatives at ZBT be further improved?

Ihre Antworten werden anonym übertragen.