MD & DO Does it make sense to make a poster AND publication out of a single project?

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.

ATP to ADP

Full Member
5+ Year Member
Joined
Feb 26, 2017
Messages
24
Reaction score
6
I'm working on a research project right now that I am working on publishing as a paper. Does it make any sense to do both a paper and a poster on the same topic? I've made a poster before in undergrad, and I think it would be quite easy to convert the paper into poster format. I'd like to present at a post-grad symposium or something, nothing fancy.

Will it count as 2 different research listings on ERAS?

Members don't see this ad.
 
Members don't see this ad :)
Yes. Almost all of my research group's papers were presented posters first. I think it'd be more surprising for a paper not to have been presented as a poster somewhere first.

As far as ERAS, this is debated a bit, but I think most people will list both a poster and a paper for the same project. I personally only listed posters which papers hadn't been published yet.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
Submit to local/sectional meeting.
Submit to national meeting.
Publish.

Rinse and repeat

Seriously though that is how the “average research” on charting outcomes can be 8 publications/presentations for derm. It’s 2-3 projects spread out over multiple settings.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 5 users
I'm working on a research project right now that I am working on publishing as a paper. Does it make any sense to do both a paper and a poster on the same topic? I've made a poster before in undergrad, and I think it would be quite easy to convert the paper into poster format. I'd like to present at a post-grad symposium or something, nothing fancy.

Will it count as 2 different research listings on ERAS?
Tons of people do this, including me. We usually do posters before papers, because you can get away with partial data on posters. I've also seen tons of people publish first and then give talks at meetings.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
A poster isn't a publication but it is a research experience. The resulting paper may well entail more research (think literature review deep dive as an example - not all research is on the bench) so it's likely an additional research experience as well as a publication.

Get everything you can.
 
You should not attempt to turn an already published paper into a poster, but it’s perfectly fine to have a poster and turn it into a paper.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
You should not attempt to turn an already published paper into a poster, but it’s perfectly fine to have a poster and turn it into a paper.

So, if I publish a paper I can't have a poster version of my work for that particular type of display or meeting? Is that what you're saying?
 
So, if I publish a paper I can't have a poster version of my work for that particular type of display or meeting? Is that what you're saying?

If the paper has already been published, then no, you shouldn't present it as original research (which is what most oral presentations/poster presentations are supposed to be at national conferences). To have it as a review is fine if you call it that.
 
Members don't see this ad :)
If the paper has already been published, then no, you shouldn't present it as original research (which is what most oral presentations/poster presentations are supposed to be at national conferences). To have it as a review is fine if you call it that.
Where are all these esoteric rules of etiquette promulgated?
 
Also, you shouldn't present the same data at two national conferences. It's okay to present it at a local, regional, and national conference, but not two at the same level. So, I presented my work at PAS (national conference), followed by our hospital's research day (local conference). That is kosher. Me trying to present it at PAS and then, say, ADA (also a national conference) would be frowned upon.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
A poster isn't a publication but it is a research experience. The resulting paper may well entail more research (think literature review deep dive as an example - not all research is on the bench) so it's likely an additional research experience as well as a publication.

Get everything you can.
On ERAS it is
 
Also, you shouldn't present the same data at two national conferences. It's okay to present it at a local, regional, and national conference, but not two at the same level. So, I presented my work at PAS (national conference), followed by our hospital's research day (local conference). That is kosher. Me trying to present it at PAS and then, say, ADA (also a national conference) would be frowned upon.

That’s not true. At least not in my field. I’ve presented the same paper at both of our major national conferences at the podium without a problem.


Sent from my iPhone using SDN mobile
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Also, you shouldn't present the same data at two national conferences. It's okay to present it at a local, regional, and national conference, but not two at the same level. So, I presented my work at PAS (national conference), followed by our hospital's research day (local conference). That is kosher. Me trying to present it at PAS and then, say, ADA (also a national conference) would be frowned upon.

Also makes no sense. I really think some of you are making some of this up.
 
Finally, a document.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
That makes zero sense.

You'll learn how to game the ERAS system one day, young padawan.

Also makes no sense. I really think some of you are making some of this up.

We've all gone through the match (how we know about ERAS), and we've all done research in some capacity.

That’s not true. At least not in my field. I’ve presented the same paper at both of our major national conferences at the podium without a problem.


Sent from my iPhone using SDN mobile

Major landmark trials in oncology frequently get presented at multiple conferences throughout the year, but this is very rare AFAIK outside of that. Outside of the oncology world I'm not sure what conventions are.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Major landmark trials in oncology frequently get presented at multiple conferences throughout the year, but this is very rare AFAIK outside of that. Outside of the oncology world I'm not sure what conventions are.

In Ortho it’s very common. I’ve done it multiple times. In fact I bank on multiple acceptances so I can go to nice places and get cme ;)


Sent from my iPhone using SDN mobile
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
...young padawan.

Half right, anyway.

We've all gone through the match (how we know about ERAS), and we've all done research in some capacity.

One response was "dogma". How is that an answer? And yeah I know you said it. At least someone finally coughed up some sort of sort of supporting documentation to back up what was being said. I've seen how "tribal knowledge" and the grapevine can make a train wreck of what was meant to be a relatively simple process.
 
That makes zero sense.
Of course it makes no sense, but that's how it is. Have you looked at the average number of "publications" some specialties have? If any biology PhD program claimed its students had as many "publications" as some of these specialties they'd be laughed out of the room for cooking the books or straight up lying.
 
Also makes no sense. I really think some of you are making some of this up.
I think one of the issues here is basic science/translational research might have different rules than clinical research as well as (and more importantly) the fact that there really isn't any system set up to police or enforce any of this.

The whole "don't present the same work at multiple conferences" is straight up written into the submissions guidelines when you submit work for a poster or talk at more basic science oriented ones at least (I've never submitted to a clinically oriented conference). People do often submit data that at the time isn't published but gets accepted and/or published between submission and conference which I think is still in the spirit of it because you cant guarantee it gets accepted.

Nearly every journal also has a written policy that any submission to them cannot be an active submission anywhere else. I've also served as a reviewer for journals where I've checked to see if the manuscript got accepted at the journal or published later on to see if my suggestions became part of the later publication and I've seen articles be printed in a different journal with nearly identical submission to what I read with a submit date that clearly means they submitted the paper to multiple journals simultaneously. I've informed editors that I've found such blatant violation of journal policy but to my knowledge it's basically shouting into the void. Maybe the authors got blacklisted from the journal I reviewed for but I have no way of knowing for certain. If they get published again then I would know it didn't result in blacklisting but the amount of effort it would take to keep up on that is way more than I'm willing to invest.

And it makes perfect sense. One of the major functions of a conference is to present cutting edge research. Why would I go to a conference if all the data being presented is stuff I've seen or read elsewhere? That defeats a major purpose of the whole event.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
What is relatively common, especially for major trials, is to submit an abstract for oral presentation (major trial, so gets the oral presentation nod) and then between acceptance and presentation, the paper gets written and accepted. However, the paper is frequently embargoed, meaning that it can't be published until the talk has been given. This has lead to multiple scenarios where the talk is given and the same day or less than a week later, the full manuscript is published in print in a well-known journal.
 
Decided to go combing for some statements since you are so interested in documentation:

The corresponding author also must clearly identify at submission any material within the manuscript (such as figures) that has been published previously elsewhere and provide written permission from authors of the prior work and/or publishers, as appropriate, for the re-use of such material.
-Nature (Note, this policy is for ALL nature articles, not just original research. It is completely appropriate for a review to use previously published figures - much less so for original work.) Authorship : authors & referees @ npg

If you or your coauthors have any related papers submitted or in press elsewhere, you need to let us know and include them with your initial submission (or with your revision if they were submitted during revision). We ask this because having access to related papers often helps us (and reviewers) to assess the submitted work, and it can help prevent potentially difficult scenarios down the road. Failure to provide copies of related manuscripts may delay the review process and may be grounds for rejection. As a matter of publishing ethics, we cannot consider any paper that contains data that have been published or submitted for publication elsewhere.
-Cell (https://www.cell.com/cell/authors)

And for some conferences:

Information and data in abstracts submitted for the SfN annual meeting are embargoed until the start of the SfN presentation or press conference. Abstract presentations may not be presented at another meeting or published in an archival scientific publication before the scheduled SfN presentation date unless it is at a published satellite event or SfN-hosted press conference for Neuroscience 2018. All authors must abide by SfN's embargo policy.
-Society for Neuroscience (Abstracts)

  • It is preferred that ASM Microbe 2019 be the first major presentation of the abstract.
-ASM (Abstracts). Have to admit, was not expecting that one

Authors who submit an abstract confirm that they have not previously published these data, that they have not previously presented them at a large national annual scientific meeting, and that they are not planning to present or publish them prior to the dates of the AACR Annual Meeting 2019.
-AACR (https://www.aacr.org/Documents/19AM_LBA_SubmissionGuidelines.pdf)

BCVS 2019 is a forum for the presentation of novel research findings. The work covered by the abstract must not have been published at the time of abstract submission or presented at a national meeting or world congress before July 29, 2019.[/B]
-AHA's BCVS conference (https://professional.heart.org/idc/...p/@scon/documents/downloadable/ucm_503275.pdf)
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Decided to go combing for some statements since you are so interested in documentation:


-Nature (Note, this policy is for ALL nature articles, not just original research. It is completely appropriate for a review to use previously published figures - much less so for original work.) Authorship : authors & referees @ npg


-Cell (https://www.cell.com/cell/authors)

And for some conferences:


-Society for Neuroscience (Abstracts)


-ASM (Abstracts). Have to admit, was not expecting that one


-AACR (https://www.aacr.org/Documents/19AM_LBA_SubmissionGuidelines.pdf)


-AHA's BCVS conference (https://professional.heart.org/idc/...p/@scon/documents/downloadable/ucm_503275.pdf)

This drills down to the real problem under everyone's nose. Read between the lines you quoted and you can see what you did there was illustrate how these journals handcuff contributors with rules so that they can create exclusivity over the material. The whole publishing industry built up around peoples good works is shady as hell.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
This drills down to the real problem under everyone's nose. Read between the lines you quoted and you can see what you did there was illustrate how these journals handcuff contributors with rules so that they can create exclusivity over the material. The whole publishing industry built up around peoples good works is shady as hell.
This isn’t under anyone’s nose if you know anything about publishing. We pay to publish in these journals and also have to pay to read them and on top of that we are expected to donate our time to review papers for them. The journals highly prioritize papers with findings vs repeating studies or well documented negative results such that a staggering amount of published research is irreporoducible which does not bode well for its veracity. Frankly demanding exclusivity until they decide to reject is among the least of their issues as time consuming as it is.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
I think one of the issues here is basic science/translational research might have different rules than clinical research as well as (and more importantly) the fact that there really isn't any system set up to police or enforce any of this.


This. Also many medical specialty conferences have a research component and an educational component. The educational presentations are often canned speeches reviewing data given over and over again. Often the rules at these conferences are murky.
 
For clarification, I had an abstract accepted to a national conference, presented a PowerPoint/talk over it there, and then was asked to give the same talk for my school’s research day and at the state chapter meeting for the specialty it’s in. Would all of those be separate on my app or just list the biggest of them all?
 
Top