User Program Overview Anke Toth User Program Chief

User Program Overview Anke Toth User Program Chief of Staff

Users Statistics User Survey Citing our Grant

In 2018, the Mag. Lab Attracted Researchers from Organizations around the World 162 159 Industry (9%) 2, 077 321 Government Labs (15%) Universities (76%) [CELLRANG E], [VALUE] International Organizations [CELLRANG E], [VALUE] Domestic Organizations

2018 Mag. Lab User Program Headcount by Career Level

2018 Mag. Lab User Program Headcount by Career Level

Mag. Lab User Program – Career Level Mag. Lab User Program Headcount by Career Level 2, 000 Technicians Students Postdocs 218 463 545 585 577 689 39 35 46 69 296 18 73 20 20 20 15 20 20 410 14 409 191 17 210 243 749 825 16 920 20 355 189 13 170 12 173 749 20 671 11 154 288 10 09 20 20 08 0 157 260 324 574 20 509 632 730 % 1, 019 929 Senior Investigators 1, 000 500 10 20 1, 500

Mag. Lab User Program Headcount by Facilities 800 700 670 DC Field Facility 600 AMRIS Facility @ UF 500 ICR Facility 378 400 375 300 320 200 161 100 155 18 18 20 17 20 16 20 15 20 14 20 13 20 12 20 11 20 10 20 09 20 20 08 0 NMR Facility @ FSU EMR Facility Pulsed Field Facility at LANL High B/T Facility at UF

Mag. Lab User Program – Career Level 2018 Mag. Lab User by Discipline for each Facilities 700 600 500 34 71 42 45 400 300 103 129 478 200 8 3 2 100 22 139 2 DC Field PFF 15 High B/T Condensed Matter Physics Magnets, Materials Biology, Biochemistry, Biophysics 2 108 EMR 238 21 52 48 30 43 NMR AMRIS 85 2 50 253 10 Engineering Chemistry, Geochemistry 10 20 ICR

Mag. Lab User Program – Career Level 2018 Mag. Lab User by Discipline for each Facilities 700 600 500 34 71 ~30% 42 45 400 300 103 129 478 200 8 3 2 100 22 139 2 DC Field PFF 15 High B/T Condensed Matter Physics Magnets, Materials Biology, Biochemistry, Biophysics 2 108 EMR 238 21 52 48 30 43 NMR AMRIS 85 2 50 253 10 Engineering Chemistry, Geochemistry 10 20 ICR

Mag. Lab User Program – Career Level 2018 Mag. Lab User by Discipline for each Facilities 700 600 500 34 71 42 45 400 300 103 129 478 200 8 3 2 100 22 139 2 DC Field PFF 15 High B/T Condensed Matter Physics Magnets, Materials Biology, Biochemistry, Biophysics 2 108 EMR 238 21 52 48 30 43 NMR AMRIS 85 2 50 253 10 Engineering Chemistry, Geochemistry 10 20 ICR

Mag. Lab User Program – Career Level 2018 Mag. Lab User by Discipline for each Facilities 700 600 500 34 71 ~42% 42 45 400 300 103 129 478 200 8 3 2 100 22 139 2 DC Field PFF 15 High B/T Condensed Matter Physics Magnets, Materials Biology, Biochemistry, Biophysics 2 108 EMR 238 21 52 48 30 43 NMR AMRIS 85 2 50 253 10 Engineering Chemistry, Geochemistry 10 20 ICR

Mag. Lab User Program – Career Level 2018 New Mag. Lab Users and PIs

Mag. Lab User Program – Career Level 2018 New Mag. Lab Users and PIs

Mag. Lab User Program – Career Level 2018 New Mag. Lab Users and PIs

Mag. Lab User Program – Career Level 2018 New Mag. Lab Users and PIs 14, 200 days 10, 675 magnet days (133%)

2018 Gender Diversity of Mag. Lab Users Postdocs; 76; 4% Male ; 1246; 73% Female [PERCENTAGE] Senior Personnel; 182; 11% Students; 180; 11% Technician; 20; 1%

Female Mag. Lab Users over the Past Years 30% 2, 500 Male No Response to not Gender User preferred to answer gender Female 2, 000 26. 9% 23. 3% 23. 7% 25% 20. 1% 20% 21. 4% 19. 2% 17. 4% 17. 2% 1, 500 18. 0% 18. 6% 1, 246 15% 1, 109 1, 161 1, 174 5% 18 20 20 20 18 20 17 20 16 20 15 20 14 20 13 20 12 20 11 20 10 20 09 20 17 0% 16 458 20 345 15 352 09 319 20 254 243 14 235 238 20 215 13 195 0 20 27 12 122 74 20 500 265 11 1, 003 10% 20 855 373 355 10 938 1, 117 1, 107 1, 114 20 1, 000

2018 Race Diversity of Mag. Lab Users Senior Personnel, 49, 3% Non-Minority, 1, 453, 92% Minority, [VALUE], [PERCENTAGE] Postdocs, 20, 1% Students, 43, 3% Technician, 6, 0%

Minority Mag. Lab Users over the Past Years 8% 2, 500 7% 2, 000 7. 5% 6. 9%7. 0% 6. 7% 6. 5% 6. 4% 6. 2% 5. 9% 5. 7% 5% 5. 5% 6% 1, 500 1, 453 4% 1, 580 1, 328 1, 317 506 364 18 20 17 20 16 20 15 20 14 20 13 20 12 20 11 20 10 18 20 17 0% 20 118 119 20 16 20 15 20 14 13 97 2% 1% 110 91 72 85 20 12 20 11 78 80 196 137 20 71 20 10 20 09 0 1, 170 998 72 70 20 500 1, 063 1, 233 1, 214 09 1, 272 Under-Represented Minorities (i. e. All excluding Asian) 3% 20 1, 000

User Survey and Feedback

Mag. Lab User Program – Career Level Annual User Satisfaction Survey Annually (started conducting survey in 2010) Survey Timeframe: June 1 – May 31 Survey Duration: During month of June Eligible users: • All Mag. Lab PIs • Present collaborators Received magnet time during survey timeframe

Mag. Lab User Program – Career Level Annual User Satisfaction Survey 2018 UC Report “…encourage more efficient and targeted approaches to be explored in order to increase the user participation in annual…surveys (p. 5). ” 2019 Approaches • Converted anonymous survey to confidential survey but… q included weblinks to safmag and diversmag online systems for anonymous comments • Automated email reminders to none responders • Shorten numbers of question (28 -> 15) • Catch all question at the end of survey

Mag. Lab User Program – Career Level Annual User Satisfaction Survey 2019 Results Surveys Sent to: 1, 080 eligible users Survey Responses External: 197 (18. 2%) Survey Responses Internal: 60 (5. 6%) Survey Response Rate: 257 (23. 8%), which increased by double (128%) compared to 2018 (104, 10. 4%)

Annual User Satisfaction Survey These percentages represent the responses of “Very Satisfied” and “Satisfied. ” 2013 -2017 2018 2019 of users satisfied with performance of the facilities and equipment. 94% 95% 91% of users satisfied with the assistance provided by Mag. Lab technical staff. 96% 94% 97% of users satisfied with the Mag. Lab’s proposal & magnet time assignment processes 92% 91%

User Feedback

User Feedback After their magnet time each PI and present user receives an email requesting feedback. This email in part reads:

User Feedback After their magnet time each PI and present user gets an email requesting feedback. This email in part reads: Comments of any nature are welcome, but specifics help us greatly. For example: • Was some piece of equipment in need of repair or calibration? • Was someone particularly helpful (or not)? • Have you used an electronic instrument that does a job better than the one you used here? • Do you have any safety concerns or questions that should be addressed? • Did a staff member talk to you about safety both at the start and the end of your experiment? • To report safety concerns or other safety related issues visit http: //safemag. magnet. fsu. edu/. You may submit anonymously.

User Feedback After their magnet time each PI and present user gets an email requesting feedback. This email in part reads: Comments of any nature are welcome, but specifics help us greatly. For example: • Was some piece of equipment in need of repair or calibration? • Was someone particularly helpful (or not)? • Have you used an electronic instrument that does a job better than the one you used here? • Do you have any safety concerns or questions that should be addressed? • Did a staff member talk to you about safety both at the start and the end of your experiment? • To report safety concerns or other safety related issues visit http: //safemag. magnet. fsu. edu/. You may submit anonymously. We use this feedback to rapidly: • repair and calibrate equipment • address safety concerns

User Feedback After their magnet time each PI and present user gets an email requesting feedback. This email in part reads: Comments of any nature are welcome, but specifics help us greatly. For example: • Was some piece of equipment in need of repair or calibration? • Was someone particularly helpful (or not)? • Have you used an electronic instrument that does a job better than the one you used here? • Do you have any safety concerns or questions that should be addressed? • Did a staff member talk to you about safety both at the start and the end of your experiment? • To report safety concerns or other safety related issues visit http: //safemag. magnet. fsu. edu/. You may submit anonymously. We use this feedback to rapidly: • repair and calibrate equipment • address safety concerns We use this feedback in the long term to: • prioritize future equipment purchases • help determine raises and promotions • adjust job assignments

User Feedback • Response rate is very low (~4%) - Direct communication with user support staff 2018 UC Report “…recommends that a mechanism be put in place for the executive committee members to access the user comments … in real time. (p. 5)” Since May 2019: q In addition to the user committee chair, all executive committee members now receive reply emails from users who submit comments Any suggestions to increase the response rate is much appreciated, please use tomorrow’s breakout session after lunch.

Citing our Grant

Acknowledging our core grant! • Acknowledging our NSF core grant in your publications is increasingly important! Please help us spread the word how important this is! Correct grant numbers • • • For data collected from 2012 -2017, the grant number to use is DMR-1157490. For data collected from 2018 -2022, the grant number to use is DMR-1644779. Please include both grant numbers if data were collected during both time periods. Correct sponsors • • Author used 1 of 6 facilities located in FL: The National High Magnetic Field Laboratory is supported by the National Science Foundation through NSF/DMR-1644779 and the State of Florida. Pulsed Field facility: The National High Magnetic Field Laboratory is supported by the National Science Foundation through NSF/DMR-1644779 and the U. S. Department of Energy”. • Suggested language is on our “Request Magnet Time” web site at https: //nationalmaglab. org/user-resources/request-magnet-time

Questions/ Comments • Any suggestions to improve the user system or other general user related issues, please do not hesitate to contact me • Any facility specific suggestions or comments, please use tomorrow‘s breakout session.

Thank You! Anke Toth atoth@magnet. fsu. edu

Female Mag. Lab Users over the Past 10 Years 2, 500 Female User preferred not to disclose gender Male 2, 000 1, 500 1, 246 1, 161 1, 109 1, 174 345 458 18 20 20 352 373 20 319 17 254 265 355 20 243 15 74 14 27 122 13 20 1, 114 16 1, 107 235 12 11 10 20 08 20 09 174 0 238 215 195 20 500 1, 003 20 765 855 20 938 1, 117 20 1, 000

Minority Users over the Past 10 Years 2, 500 2, 000 1, 500 Non-Minority No Respond to Race 1, 000 Minority 500 18 20 17 20 16 20 15 20 14 20 13 20 12 20 11 20 10 20 09 20 20 08 0

How satisfied were you with the availability of the facilities and equipment? 90% 80% 70% Very Satisfied 60% Satisfied 50% 94% Neutral 40% Dissatisfied 30% Very Dissatisfied 20% 10% 0% 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

How satisfied were you with the performance of facilities and equipment? 80% 70% 60% Very Satisfied 50% 91% 40% Satisfied Neutral Dissatisfied 30% Very Dissatisfied 20% 10% 0% 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

How satisfied were you with the assistance provided by Magnet Lab facilities technical staff? 100% 90% 80% Very Satisfied 70% 97% 60% Satisfied 50% Neutral 40% Dissatisfied 30% Very Dissatisfied 20% 10% 0% 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

How satisfied were you with the assistance provided by Magnet Lab facilities administrative staff? 90% 80% 70% 60% 95% 50% Very Satisfied Neutral 40% Dissatisfied Very Dissatisfied 30% 20% 10% 0% 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

How satisfied were you with your overall safety? 90% 80% 70% Very Satisfied 60% Satisfied 99% 50% Neutral Dissatisfied 40% Very Dissatisfied 30% 20% 10% 0% 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

How satisfied were you with the proposal process (e. g. submission and review)? 80% 70% 60% Very Satisfied 50% Satisfied 91% 40% Neutral Dissatisfied 30% Very Dissatisfied 20% 10% 0% 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019