Evaluations & Satisfaction Surveys

client satisfaction survey

This monthly report encapsulates the findings of the Customer Satisfaction Survey (CSS) conducted among stakeholders of the Publication Office. It serves as a comprehensive analysis of stakeholders' feedback, sentiments, and perceptions regarding the services, products, or interactions offered by the unit. The CSS aims to gauge satisfaction levels, identify areas for improvement, and inform strategic decisions to enhance the overall stakeholder experience.

CSS 2023

CSS 2024

Plan of Actions

AUTHOR EVALUATION

The author evaluates the journal processes of TNL, APHERJ, and AsTEN, noting both strengths and areas for improvement. TNL is commended for its peer-review process, although the process can be lengthy, it ensures timely publication without compromising quality. APHERJ is recognized for its meticulous editorial standards and thorough review procedures. AsTEN is appreciated for its enhance quality of submissions.

1. The normal lights 17(2)

Analysis:

The authors of The Normal Lights 17(2) prioritize factors like peer review quality, publication speed, and journal reputation when selecting where to submit their manuscripts, reflecting a commitment to academic rigor and visibility. They generally rate their publishing experience positively, particularly praising communication with editors and copy editing quality. However, there are areas for improvement highlighted, including the speed of review and communication with publishers' staff. While they commend The Normal Lights for its reputation and paper quality, concerns about publication speed and communication reliability are noted, along with suggestions for better promoting the Philippine Normal University. Overall, authors appreciate the journal's commitment to excellence but suggest refinements to align with expectations and elevate its reputation further.

2. APHERJ 10(1)

Analysis:

Authors of APHERJ 10(1) prioritize numerous factors when choosing a journal, emphasizing the importance of peer reviewer quality, prior experience, reputation, online publication, international reach, readership, design, electronic submission, editors, impact factor, and paper quality, all rated very important. They commend APHERJ's publishing process, highlighting excellent communication with editors, referees' feedback, review speed, copy editing, and proof corrections. They also praise the efficiency and user-friendliness of APHERJ's electronic system, giving it top marks. Overall, APHERJ earns excellent ratings across reputation, paper quality, speed, scope, design, and editorial aspects, with authors expressing gratitude for a seamless experience and praising the PNU Publication Office's exceptional work.

3. AsTEN 7

Analysis:

The authors of AsTEN 7 give importance to factors such as the quality of peer reviewers, journal reputation, international reach, readership, and coverage by major indexing services when selecting a journal for manuscript submission, underscoring their focus on academic excellence and visibility. They generally rate their publishing experience positively, especially regarding communication with editors and referees, though some improvements in proofreading execution are suggested. The electronic submission and publication management system receives high marks for efficiency and ease of use, with suggestions for further expediting the publication process. While AsTEN is highly regarded for its reputation and paper quality, concerns about publication speed are noted, alongside suggestions for more frequent publication cycles. Overall, authors appreciate AsTEN's commitment to excellence but suggest adjustments to better align with expectations and enhance publication frequency.

Workshops evaluation report

This report provides a detailed analysis and assessment of various aspects related to workshops organized by the office. It encompasses feedback gathered from participants regarding the content, delivery, organization, and overall effectiveness of the workshops. The report typically includes quantitative data, such as ratings and scores, as well as qualitative insights, such as comments and suggestions, to offer a comprehensive understanding of the workshop's strengths and areas for improvement. This evaluation is a valuable tool for the Publication Office to refine future workshop offerings, enhance participant satisfaction, and achieve the desired learning outcomes.

other workshop evaluation details

1. best research music video online workshop

Average Evaluation: 4.77/5

Analysis:

Overall, the participants rated the online workshop as able to meet the program's objectives. However, several participants were honest in mentioning the shortcomings of the workshop, specifically logistic-wise (online platform).

2. WORKSHOP on Evaluation of Reviewer's review of the normal lights 2023 Published articles and training on the development of evaluation of research tools and instrument

March 18 to March 20, 2024 | Ramada by Whyndham Manila Central

Average Evaluation: 5/5

Analysis:

Overall, the participants rated the training workshop as able to meet the objectives. Also, the participants suggested improvements.

3. PRISMA's Workshop on Contents, Policies, and Review Process

May 21 to March 23, 2024 | Anahaw Coco Farm and Resort, Batangas

Average Evaluation: 4.66/5

Analysis:

Overall, the participants rated the training workshop well in terms of the objectives. They highlighted the cooperation and collaboration among the participants as the workshops’ biggest strength as well as the preparation of the people behind it. However, they also highlighted the venue as its weakness, citing issues such as equipment, internet connection, food choices, etc.

4. Workshop ON FINALIZING PRISMA's review process and author guidelines for creative works

July 4 to July 5, 2024 | Executive Board Room and Lounge, 5th floor, Maceda Building, PNU Manila

Average Evaluation: 4.88/5

Analysis:

Overall, participants rated the program positively regarding its objectives. They appreciated the

diversity of the resource speakers/artists, which led to deeper and more open discussions. However, some

participants emphasized the importance of having resource speakers/artists from the field of education rather than industry or commercial backgrounds to better achieve the journal's goals.

5. Workshop to Streamline Publication Office Processes and Review of 2024 Plans

July 29 to July 31, 2024 | Orchid Garden Suites Manila

Average Evaluation: 4.89/5

Analysis:

The workshops were highly successful, with excellent ratings across all evaluated categories.

The only area for potential improvement is the internet connectivity, as a couple of participants

experienced issues. These minor concerns aside, the workshops were deemed productive, well-organized, and informative.

6. turnitin instructor's workflow training

September 13, 2024 | Philippine Normal University

Average Evaluation: 4.81/5

Analysis:

The Turnitin Instructor’s Workflow Training received an overall weighted average score of 4.8, rated as "Excellent." Feedback suggests that participants found the training highly relevant to their roles, particularly in understanding how to use Turnitin to promote academic integrity and improve student writing. The high ratings for the criteria indicate that the content covered such as differentiating between similarity and plagiarism and using the AI detection tool aligned well with the instructors’ needs in managing academic integrity within their coursework.

The few ratings below "Excellent" could suggest areas where instructors may want further guidance or deeper exploration. For example, some instructors might benefit from additional training time to fully absorb the nuanced features of Turnitin, as suggested by the open-ended feedback. Additionally, the recommendation to extend session length implies that while the training was effective, certain aspects could benefit from a more comprehensive approach. Addressing these insights in future sessions could enhance engagement and ensure that all attendees achieve a full grasp of Turnitin’s capabilities.

RESEARCH DISSEMINATIONS

The author evaluates the journal's research dissemination programs, highlighting key strengths while identifying areas for improvement.

1. PNU SINAG

The PNU SINAG received unanimously positive feedback from five respondents, who rated "Strongly Agree" for its effectiveness in promoting research, fostering peer engagement, raising their professional profile, increasing citations, and improving article accessibility. Additionally, all participants rated their overall experience as "Very Satisfied," highlighting the activity's success in enhancing research visibility and impact.

Page updated

Google Sites

Report abuse