Question about research/abstracts/posters...

SDN Members don't see this ad. (About Ads)

So I have been doing basic science/bench research for my mentor for about a year now, and have generated some data here and there... nothing too groundbreaking. So far I only have one poster presentation to show for it.

Well my mentor told me that she included me on an abstract that I believe was just submitted for a conference coming up in a few months. Later in the conversation she referred to it as including me in the "poster."

So basically my questions are.... what exactly does that mean? Is it a poster or an abstract? Or both? How would one include something like that on a CV?

I think I am research mentally challenged... so thanks!!!

I did a poster this year. The doc I worked with had to submit an abstract to get approved before we worked on the poster. The abstract just described what the poster was going to be about. Maybe this is what she meant.

When you want to present at a conference, you have to submit an abstract first, which is generally description of what the research is all about. If the abstract is approved by the conference committee, you have to turn the abstract into something that you can present (usually in form of powerpoint presentation or poster presentation).

So it seems like your PI submitted the abstract, got approved, and made a poster from it and presented it to the conference. you can probably say poster presentation in your CV or say abstract approved at (name of conference)

Originally Posted by XRanger

When you want to present at a conference, you have to submit an abstract first, which is generally description of what the research is all about. If the abstract is approved by the conference committee, you have to turn the abstract into something that you can present (usually in form of powerpoint presentation or poster presentation).

So it seems like your PI submitted the abstract, got approved, and made a poster from it and presented it to the conference. you can probably say poster presentation in your CV or say abstract approved at (name of conference)

Ok that makes sense. Well the abstract was just submitted, and I think the conference is in 4-5 months from now.

So in the hierarchy of things, a poster would be better to include than an abstract?

Originally Posted by IJL

Ok that makes sense. Well the abstract was just submitted, and I think the conference is in 4-5 months from now.

So in the hierarchy of things, a poster would be better to include than an abstract?

They are really the same thing. When you say abstracts on a CV or something, usually people infer you did a poster. Otherwise, you should specific it was a presentation.

Originally Posted by IJL

Ok that makes sense. Well the abstract was just submitted, and I think the conference is in 4-5 months from now.

So in the hierarchy of things, a poster would be better to include than an abstract?

Think of the abstract as a proposal. The product/outcome is the presentation, in this case a poster (versus a platform).

The presentation is usually what is cited on a CV, but you should note that it was your mentor who presented it and not you. If the abstract will also be published in a journal as part of the conference (usually in a supplement or special issue--doesn't happen with every conference), then you can cite that instead.

Originally Posted by BrightandClear

The presentation is usually what is cited on a CV, but you should note that it was your mentor who presented it and not you. If the abstract will also be published in a journal as part of the conference (usually in a supplement or special issue--doesn't happen with every conference), then you can cite that instead.

Incorrect. You should site it as a "poster" on your CV with the authors listed in the proper order. It doesn't matter who "presented" the poster. This only matters if it's an oral presentation at a conference.

Originally Posted by skinMD

Incorrect. You should site it as a "poster" on your CV with the authors listed in the proper order. It doesn't matter who "presented" the poster. This only matters if it's an oral presentation at a conference.

What if the abstract is published in a journal as part of the conference? Would you still say poster?

Originally Posted by skinMD

Incorrect. You should site it as a "poster" on your CV with the authors listed in the proper order. It doesn't matter who "presented" the poster. This only matters if it's an oral presentation at a conference.

In my experience what you're suggesting is very wrong. Perhaps it's just a difference of fields.

Originally Posted by auburnO5

What if the abstract is published in a journal as part of the conference? Would you still say poster?

List it under 'Abstracts' in a publications section. If you presented the poster, list that separately in a presentations section. If you didn't present the poster and the abstract was published, I would leave the poster presentation off completely and just list he abstract.

Originally Posted by BrightandClear

In my experience what you're suggesting is very wrong. Perhaps it's just a difference of fields.

looking at your post history i'm quite sure we're talking about the same field (in a broad sense) lol

whatever though, whether you call it a "poster" or "abstract" doesn't matter, the point i was trying to make was that OP should put it on his CV

I've always listed poster presentations that were not presented by me under the "Abstracts" heading of my CV. The only things listed under the heading of "Poster Presentations" are ones I've actually presented myself. It's what was recommended by people in my previous labs. My personal opinion is that listing something as a poster presentation implies that you yourself presented the data at a conference.

Originally Posted by skinMD

whatever though, whether you call it a "poster" or "abstract" doesn't matter, the point i was trying to make was that OP should put it on his CV

Agreed. I don't think it'll matter whether you list it as a poster or as an abstract OP.

Originally Posted by BrightandClear

List it under 'Abstracts' in a publications section. If you presented the poster, list that separately in a presentations section. If you didn't present the poster and the abstract was published, I would leave the poster presentation off completely and just list he abstract.

I disagree with this. You should list the abstract only once. Do not list the abstract under publications and posters. That's like doing the work for only 1 thing, but taking credit for 2. It will look like you are trying to beef up your CV without actually doing things to beef it up (which is what you are doing by listing the same thing in 2 different sections).

Originally Posted by SurfingDoctor

I disagree with this. You should list the abstract only once. Do not list the abstract under publications and posters. That's like doing the work for only 1 thing, but taking credit for 2. It will look like you are trying to beef up your CV without actually doing things to beef it up (which is what you are doing by listing the same thing in 2 different sections).

I've been told this is the one area where it's okay to "double-dip" on your CV. Listing the presentations shows you presented at the conference, listing the abstract (only if it's published) lets someone find your work if they are interested. It's not really about taking credit for more work, just citing different aspects for different reasons. Either way, I don't think it really matters that much at this level...

Originally Posted by BrightandClear

I've been told this is the one area where it's okay to "double-dip" on your CV. Listing the presentations shows you presented at the conference, listing the abstract (only if it's published) lets someone find your work if they are interested. It's not really about taking credit for more work, just citing different aspects for different reasons. Either way, I don't think it really matters that much at this level...

It's never okay to "double-dip." Posters can be fairly easily found, for the most part, since a lot of conferences have websites with all the abstracts on there. For example, if someone listed a poster presentation from the AACR 2012 conference, I could just go on the conference website, search their name, and it pops right up.

Citing the same thing twice is just plain dishonest; SurfingDoctor is absolutely right. I would not recommend that at all.

Originally Posted by Kaushik

It's never okay to "double-dip."

If it were this black and white there would be a manual and we wouldn't be arguing about it. I'm passing on advice I got from my PI, an extremely accomplished physician scientist, on how to set-up a CV to be an informative summary of your work. There is nothing "dishonest" about it. Take it or leave it, it's not quite the moral hazard you're making it out to be.

It is not really a "moral" thing, as I don't believe it is "dishonest". However, if you are trying to be competitive for a position, school, job, what-have-you, it's very easy to see through this and you may get asked about it. Only putting it in once avoids that possibility.

I have also received the advice to list abstracts you didn't present under an Abstracts heading, and separately list poster presentations (repeating the abstract). It's not double dipping. In one you contributed to an abstract, in the other you made and presented a poster or gave an oral presentation (both a lot of work)

Do people ever present the same poster at multiple events? And can this be listed on CV?

Originally Posted by JP2740

Do people ever present the same poster at multiple events? And can this be listed on CV?

I'm sure it happens... but, at least in my field of research, it is frowned upon to list/present the same exact poster at multiple events unless it is some type of special circumstances.

Originally Posted by BrightandClear

If it were this black and white there would be a manual and we wouldn't be arguing about it. I'm passing on advice I got from my PI, an extremely accomplished physician scientist, on how to set-up a CV to be an informative summary of your work. There is nothing "dishonest" about it. Take it or leave it, it's not quite the moral hazard you're making it out to be.

Originally Posted by Valadi

I have also received the advice to list abstracts you didn't present under an Abstracts heading, and separately list poster presentations (repeating the abstract). It's not double dipping. In one you contributed to an abstract, in the other you made and presented a poster or gave an oral presentation (both a lot of work)

Eh, I was always taught the opposite, hence my previous post.

Originally Posted by JP2740

Do people ever present the same poster at multiple events? And can this be listed on CV?

It's fine for your CV but depends on the rules of where you're presenting. Some places only don't accept previously published work, whereas some don't accept any work that's been previously presented.

Originally Posted by Valadi

It's fine for your CV but depends on the rules of where you're presenting. Some places only don't accept previously published work, whereas some don't accept any work that's been previously presented.

So techincally if you change the name of the poster it's a different poster, even though it's very similar to the one before. That's fair game?

Originally Posted by JP2740

So techincally if you change the name of the poster it's a different poster, even though it's very similar to the one before. That's fair game?

if a conference says that they want "original material" for presentation, merely changing the title on a poster does not make it original, imo.

nothing would happen prob, but that's kinda shady.

Originally Posted by JP2740

So techincally if you change the name of the poster it's a different poster, even though it's very similar to the one before. That's fair game?

What are you asking exactly? If the conference you are submitting to does not take previously presented/published work, then, no, changing the title is not sufficient. You need to actually be submitting novel work.

Originally Posted by Blais

nothing would happen prob, but that's kinda shady.

Very shady, unethical really.

Originally Posted by Blais

if a conference says that they want "original material" for presentation, merely changing the title on a poster does not make it original, imo.

nothing would happen prob, but that's kinda shady.

Let's say I finish my poster in August, present in January. Another lab member takes over for me in August and does more work on a project and I present with him at another date. Same project, slightly different posters. The PI of the lab I work in mentioned this as a possibility. Just wondering if it's something normally done and if I could put this on a CV. I don't know the rules and games of poster presenting.

Originally Posted by JP2740

Let's say I finish my poster in August, present in January. Another lab member takes over for me in August and does more work on a project and I present with him at another date. Same project, slightly different posters. The PI of the lab I work in mentioned this as a possibility. Just wondering if it's something normally done and if I could put this on a CV. I don't know the rules and games of poster presenting.

If more work has been done/there are new results than it's fine, generally speaking.

Originally Posted by BrightandClear

If more work has been done/there are new results than it's fine, generally speaking.

gotcha. My researcher seems like a pretty ethical guy anyway, so I can always follow his direction, but not really the time to be asking **** like this to him.

Originally Posted by JP2740

gotcha. My researcher seems like a pretty ethical guy anyway, so I can always follow his direction, but not really the time to be asking **** like this to him.

It can also depend on the conference, sometimes the exact same abstract can be presented more than once. A good example is regional and national conferences in the same area. And, yeah, your PI should know all the ins/outs for the conferences in your field.

Alright so I found out if the abstract is accepted that it will be published in a field specific journal. What category would it fall under then?

Originally Posted by IJL

Alright so I found out if the abstract is accepted that it will be published in a field specific journal. What category would it fall under then?

Abstracts. You wouldn't create a new entry. You'd add it to your presentation one.

List as:

Authors. Title. Journal published. Year/Volume/issue/pages. Presented at the 89th conference for space surgeons. June 4, 2012. Las Vegas, NV.

Originally Posted by Valadi

Abstracts. You wouldn't create a new entry. You'd add it to your presentation one.

List as:

Authors. Title. Journal published. Year. Volume;issue: pages. Presented at the 89th conference for space surgeons. June 4, 2012. Las Vegas, NV.

Okay thanks. I won't be presenting it however.

Originally Posted by IJL

Okay thanks. I won't be presenting it however.

That's fine. That's why it's going under 'Abstracts' and not 'Presentations'