Summary of MLF User Questionnaire 2016
February 6th, 2017

J-PARC Center1

Overview of MLF User Questionnaire• Implementation method
Data aggregation system is stored to J-PARC Proposal Submission System• Implementation period
January 4th, 2017 9:00 to February 1st, 2017 9:00
• Survey Respondent (2018年1月から12月までのMLF利用者)
1286people• Number of respondents
334people• Response rate
26.0%

2

Number
respondents byby
job jobtitle title
Numberof ofrespondents

7%
7.6%

8.2%
19%
15%

8%
30%
32.9%

8%

33%

19.4%

Staff Scientist
Faculty
Faculty StudentGraduate
Other

Other Breakdown
Corporate Researcher

35

Grad student, Undergraduate student

4

Researcher at National Institute4

General foundational juridical person

1emeritus professor

1government

1

Ibaraki Prefecture Government

1

None

1

Other
Graduate
Student

Postdoctoral
Staff
ScientistResearcher
Other
Postdoctoral
Researcher

22%

32%
31.9% 26%3

of respondents by
researchfield field
1%NumberNumberof respondentsby
research1%3%3%
1.6% 1.2%
0.8%

2.6%4%

Materials Science and Engineering

5%
7%
7%
6.8%

Soft Matter, Biomaterials and Liquids

39%
35%

7%
8.6%
10%

Magnetism and Strongly Correlated Electron Systems

Fundamental
NewUser Promotion
Physics, Nuclear Science and Instrument
R&D

46.7%

8%

14.2%
11%

Industrial Applications
Fundamental
Physics, Nuclear Science and Instrument
R&D
Energy Science

Hydrogen inElectronic
Properties
Matter &of
GeneralMatterApplications

15%
17.4%
13%

Electronic in
Hydrogen
Properties
Matter &of
GeneralMatterApplications

16%

15%
New User Applications
IndustrialPromotion

4Number of respondents by beamline

3932
29

24

19

18

17
13

13

1211121210885989852105

Number of responses by question items
Comparison graph of items by number of respondants.

6１．Proposal process

219219225

536056

39

66POOR

827FAIR1-1) Ease of proposal process

2417GOOD1-2) Efficiency of scheduling time

VERY GOOD

2221EXCELLENT1-3) Fairness of proposal process

7２．Safety Education

215
197

7963POOR

2071

32

17FAIR2-1) Effectiveness of computer based training

GOOD

VERY GOOD

28
EXCELLENT2-2) Appropriateness of the contents regarding safety education

8

３．Support Facilities

214
199

200

209
191

190
158

8667 676475636247

463910 75 1282826 21 27POOR31FAIR2619GOODVERY GOOD

3225 27 20 1522EXCELLENT

3-1) User laboratory facilities

3-2) Tools and supplies in user labs3-3) Computers/network access for visitors

3-4) User Rooms

3-5) Break/snack room3-6） Accommodation

3-7） MLF operation status information
9４．Sample environments

221
199
188

79657247

610POOR7251320FAIR4-1) Variety of sample environments

17GOOD

VERY GOOD

33EXCELLENT

4-2) Support from sample environment personnel4-3) Quality and reliability of the equipment
10５．Instrument performance

184
15912011095977450279POOR

7214324FAIR5-1) Support from J-PARC Staff

GOODVERY GOODEXCELLENT

5-2) Hardware reliability and performance5-3) Data acquisition/instrument control software
11

６．Software( Data Analysis Software)

222
201

208
192

120
10376

75
59
38

772POOR

22613433

29

8FAIRGOOD

VERY GOOD

6-1) Quality of Software

6-2) Range of capabilities

6-3) Assistance from J-PARC staff

6-4) Remote access to software

25EXCELLENT

12