For researchers
Survey software for academic research
Matrix scales, ranking, sliders with mean and median, conditional branching and clean exports — on infrastructure you can host yourself when an ethics committee asks where the data lives.
| Strongly disagree | Disagree | Neutral | Agree | Strongly agree | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| The instructions were clear | |||||
| The task took the time I expected | |||||
| I would take part again |
Building the instrument
The types most instruments are made of are all present. Rating grids ask one Likert-style scale about a battery of statements in a single compact block. Ranking captures preference order rather than a rough top three. Sliders record degree and report both a mean and a median, which matters when a distribution is skewed and the average alone would mislead.
Conditional logic handles screening and branching: participants who do not meet a criterion never see the block that does not apply to them, and a single instrument can serve several cohorts without becoming several documents. Multi-page structure gives a long questionnaire a rhythm, and drafts let a participant pause and return without losing their progress.
Likert-style grids
One scale across a battery of items.
Mean and median
Slider results report both, not just an average.
Screening logic
AND/OR branching so each cohort sees its own path.
Only respondents who match both conditions see it.
Participant data and ethics approval
Ethics applications tend to ask three things: what is collected, where it is processed, and when it is destroyed. Name capture is optional, so an instrument can be genuinely anonymous. Retention rules delete or anonymise responses automatically after a period you specify, which turns a promise in a consent form into something the system enforces on its own.
Where the data is processed is your decision. The hosted version runs in the EU; the same software is open source and runs under Docker on institutional infrastructure when approval requires it. Because the source is public, a data protection officer can read what happens to a response rather than take a vendor's word for it.
What is collected?
Whatever you ask for — name capture is optional, so an instrument can be genuinely anonymous.
Where is it processed?
EU-hosted, or on institutional infrastructure via Docker when approval requires it.
When is it destroyed?
A retention window per survey; a daily job deletes or anonymises past it.
Getting it into your analysis
Nothing here tries to replace your statistics package. Responses export to CSV and Excel in a raw, per-response form suitable for reading straight into R, SPSS, Python or whatever the lab already uses, and file uploads are collected as downloadable references rather than pasted links.
During collection the live results view is a practical monitoring tool: it shows response counts arriving, so a recruitment drive that is not working reveals itself on the first afternoon rather than at the end of the fieldwork window.
Responses
214
fieldwork day 3
Completion
88%
188 of 214 finished
Export
CSV
one row per response
Raw exports
Per-response CSV and Excel for your own analysis.
Monitor recruitment
Watch responses arrive rather than waiting for the deadline.
Auditable code
The processing is public and can be reviewed.
Frequently asked questions
- Can I host it on university infrastructure?
- Yes. Jackpoll is open source and ships as Docker images, so an institution can run it entirely on its own servers with no licence fee.
- Can responses be collected anonymously?
- Yes. Name capture is optional per survey, and access codes can restrict participation without attaching an identity to the response.
- What export formats are available?
- CSV and Excel for raw per-response data, plus a PDF per individual response when a single record needs to stand alone.
Keep reading
Related pages on the same topic.
Start building your survey today
Free, open source, and privacy-first. No credit card, no lock-in — create your first survey or quiz in minutes.