listing the same poster presented multiple times on CV

[applyingtograd]

I presented my honors thesis twice at two separate conferences and I am not sure if I should list it as one thing or two things on my CV. Right now I have it listed as two because I wanted to list the presentations in APA format and they have different dates, but it seems repetitive. What is the profession norm?
Thanks!

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[AcronymAllergy]

It's not really acceptable to present the same poster in two places to begin with. You should only list it once on your CV.

+1. Definitely don't list it twice. And as psycscientist mentioned, in the future, just keep in mind that if you've already presented the exact same information before (e.g., no new data, no additional analyses, etc.), you're probably best served by not presenting it again down the line.

 

[applyingtograd]

one presentations was at a small local conference and the other at a national conference...for the future, would it be a good idea to avoid the smaller conferences then?

 

[wigflip]

one presentations was at a small local conference and the other at a national conference...for the future, would it be a good idea to avoid the smaller conferences then?

I did this as well my first year of grad school. If no one educates you about this ahead of time, how would you know it's a no-no? When I realized it was a goof I got responses ranging from horror (as though I'd somehow permanently defiled the discipline ) to: "That's no big deal. Everybody does it. Just change the title of the second presentation. No one will ever check." The latter was from a professor at the top of her/his subfield. Maybe if you're applying to grad school drop the smaller one from the CV for purposes of the application cycle, but reinstate the smaller one on your permanent CV after you get accepted somewhere?

 

[Ollie123]

I actually think its fine to present something twice in that context (once at a small local event, once at a big one) but would still only list the national one on the CV. Though there are some caveats to that as some conferences have strict guidelines ( I believe APA has you sign something in this regard saying you haven't presented it elsewhere), etc.

I know others disagree but I think an outright bar of presenting things just means no decent researcher would ever go to local conferences and they would just become the garbage dumps of science. Based on my experiences with them, its too true already - people aren't going to present anything good at local conferences.

Frankly, given virtually all the "big names" in the field will recycle their talks endlessly, I don't really feel bad about tacking up my most recent "real" conference poster at my hospital's annual research symposium rather than putting together a new poster for a conference where 4 people attending understand what I do, and 3 of them are me and my co-authors. Like I said above though - don't put the smaller one on the CV.

 

[Pragma]

I actually think its fine to present something twice in that context (once at a small local event, once at a big one) but would still only list the national one on the CV. Though there are some caveats to that as some conferences have strict guidelines ( I believe APA has you sign something in this regard saying you haven't presented it elsewhere), etc.

I know others disagree but I think an outright bar of presenting things just means no decent researcher would ever go to local conferences and they would just become the garbage dumps of science. Based on my experiences with them, its too true already - people aren't going to present anything good at local conferences.

Frankly, given virtually all the "big names" in the field will recycle their talks endlessly, I don't really feel bad about tacking up my most recent "real" conference poster at my hospital's annual research symposium rather than putting together a new poster for a conference where 4 people attending understand what I do, and 3 of them are me and my co-authors. Like I said above though - don't put the smaller one on the CV.

Yeah it is one thing to present something two times (not really a big deal). It's another thing to claim them as independent research accomplishments if they are not different.

 

[AcronymAllergy]

I actually think its fine to present something twice in that context (once at a small local event, once at a big one) but would still only list the national one on the CV. Though there are some caveats to that as some conferences have strict guidelines ( I believe APA has you sign something in this regard saying you haven't presented it elsewhere), etc.

I know others disagree but I think an outright bar of presenting things just means no decent researcher would ever go to local conferences and they would just become the garbage dumps of science. Based on my experiences with them, its too true already - people aren't going to present anything good at local conferences.

Frankly, given virtually all the "big names" in the field will recycle their talks endlessly, I don't really feel bad about tacking up my most recent "real" conference poster at my hospital's annual research symposium rather than putting together a new poster for a conference where 4 people attending understand what I do, and 3 of them are me and my co-authors. Like I said above though - don't put the smaller one on the CV.

That was essentially the bigger issue I had, yep; some conferences will have you sign a statement when submitting the work that you haven't presented this data elsewhere. If not, then going from a local to a national/international conference (in my mind) isn't unethical, but claiming it twice on your CV could certainly be seen as padding.

 

[Member6523]

What about listing a published abstract twice, that is, once as the published abstract and once as a poster presentation? I realize this might be CV padding too but didn't think of it until just now!

 

[wigflip]

I know others disagree but I think an outright bar of presenting things just means no decent researcher would ever go to local conferences and they would just become the garbage dumps of science. Based on my experiences with them, its too true already - people aren't going to present anything good at local conferences.

Frankly, given virtually all the "big names" in the field will recycle their talks endlessly,

Great points, Ollie. I almost made point #2 myself (in my post above), then figured I should just move on to another venue for procrastinating on my work.

 

[PsychApps2009]

I never list it twice - but if so inclined I say where it was presented in both places like this:

Doe, J. (2009, May / November). Title of my poster is awesome. Poster session show cased at VA Research Week, Boston, MA. Poster session presented at the 43rd annual meeting of the Association for Behavioral and Cognitive Therapies, New York, NY.

If it was "presented" (VA used the word 'showcased' specifically for people who worked there when I did) at two conferences - then I would cut that down and say Poster session presented at [NAME OF CONFERENCE, LOCATION] and [NAME OF CONFERENCE, LOCATION] (<-- Note: I have never done that though b/c most big national conferences don't like you to present the exact same work twice. The only time I present the same work twice on that level is if there's some change, e.g., initial data present a poster and then later I did further analyses on it and did it as a talk... and for that scenario I will update the title if needed and list it as a presentation/talk as well).

It will come across as padding if you list the same poster twice separately, and listing the bigger/national conference only anyway will get you just as much credit.

The only one that I listed "twice" was my undergrad honors thesis which I presented at my University when I graduated in 2008 and then re-did analyses and presented with co-authors a year later at a conference.

 

[LivingOffLoans]

What about listing the project twice - once under 'Research Experience' and then again under 'Presentations'?

It seems to me this would be necessary if you had these two sections for the sake of not having all your projects fit neatly into one section. Some receive a presentation/publication, others did not but you were an RA.

Can anyone answer this?

 

[Ollie123]

I wouldn't list the actual citation twice. If you are describing a bunch of different projects and your duties in a lab under a "research experience" subheading and this included stuff related to the poster I don't see any problem with that as long as its done appropriately for a CV (i.e. briefly mention the project and that your duties included assisting with poster preparation - not writing paragraph after paragraph about it).

That's really only for an undergrad though (not sure what level you are at). Grad students should be beyond the point where they are describing lab involvement/duties in detail. Largely because the duties section should generally just be (IMO) "Everything a PI does, but under supervision". I've seen a few folks who still have paragraphs describing their duties and if they are beyond the first year of grad school I feel like it just highlights the lack of solid experience.

 

[Pragma]

That's really only for an undergrad though (not sure what level you are at). Grad students should be beyond the point where they are describing lab involvement/duties in detail. Largely because the duties section should generally just be (IMO) "Everything a PI does, but under supervision". I've seen a few folks who still have paragraphs describing their duties and if they are beyond the first year of grad school I feel like it just highlights the lack of solid experience.

Yeah that has always puzzled me when people are very detailed in describing their positions. I followed the "3 line" rule for awhile, where you might note what you did specifically in a given role but it had to all be stated within 3 lines or less - and old jobs had to have little or no description compared to recent jobs. Also, I am not sure that "everything a PI does" applies for every training situation. In my case, it was definitely like that, but I had a very research-oriented PI. But some graduate students may never write an IRB application, write a grant, supervise a student, etc...so some clarification of what you did may be helpful. Actually, if I were evaluating any graduate student CV, I wouldn't assume "everything a PI does" at all unless perhaps I knew their mentor or their program was reputable.

Once I got a faculty job I actually went and did even more major cutting to my CV (i.e., only list position titles, no descriptions whatsoever, re-organized things). It felt kind of funny - getting rid of those 3-line descriptions for all of my past jobs shortened the ol' CV by a whole page - as a minimalist it is satisfying

 

[Ollie123]

3 lines seems reasonable, though I still maintain that after a certain point, duties should become a "given". Though I suppose I am biased being in a research-heavy program and it might be more necessary if someone has say...one poster as 3rd author and nothing else. I'd hope from looking at my CV it would go without saying I know how to submit an IRB application, analyze data, etc. I long ago pared down descriptions of research positions, but do still give a vague overview for clinical positions (i.e. client type if not obvious, tests used) just because there isn't any other place on the CV where one can glean that, though that will probably go too once I'm done with practicums/internship.

I get not having written a grant since there are plenty of faculty who don't write grants. I can't fathom getting through grad school without writing an IRB application (save for these FSPSs with their "Narrative review" dissertations). Heck I can barely fathom getting INTO grad school without doing it...we typically have our coordinators working on them.

 

[Pragma]

3 lines seems reasonable, though I still maintain that after a certain point, duties should become a "given". Though I suppose I am biased being in a research-heavy program and it might be more necessary if someone has say...one poster as 3rd author and nothing else. I'd hope from looking at my CV it would go without saying I know how to submit an IRB application, analyze data, etc. I long ago pared down descriptions of research positions, but do still give a vague overview for clinical positions (i.e. client type if not obvious, tests used) just because there isn't any other place on the CV where one can glean that, though that will probably go too once I'm done with practicums/internship.

I get not having written a grant since there are plenty of faculty who don't write grants. I can't fathom getting through grad school without writing an IRB application (save for these FSPSs with their "Narrative review" dissertations). Heck I can barely fathom getting INTO grad school without doing it...we typically have our coordinators working on them.

Yeah I get your primary points. I just think "Graduate Research Assistant" without some brief description can mean a lot of things for less research-heavy programs. Even within programs, you have to be a little careful. For example, I decided to be a volunteer RA outside of my program to get some other research experience on a discrete project. I wouldn't consider what I did on that CV line the same as what I did in my primary lab.

It sounds like you and I sort of had the experience where we did everything you could imagine related to the research process in those roles (and I wish that was a requirement). But it definitely varies by program. Also - as I realized recently via SDN, some people don't even get their funding from being an RA - my 20 hours per week in the lab is really where I got most of my skills. While I learned a lot doing my master's and dissertation projects, if I were being paid for my clinical work I wouldn't have had as much time to dedicate to my research training.

Then of course, there are those that don't get funding at all - one must wonder what their experiences are like solely on a volunteer basis.

 

[psycstudnt]

What about listing a published abstract twice, that is, once as the published abstract and once as a poster presentation? I realize this might be CV padding too but didn't think of it until just now!

I had the same question recently... do you typically just list poster presentation in the "presentations" section, or do you also list the published abstract from the journal or supplement under the "publications" section?

 

[Pragma]

I had the same question recently... do you typically just list poster presentation in the "presentations" section, or do you also list the published abstract from the journal or supplement under the "publications" section?

I would pick one or the other, and I would make it very clear that the abstract is not a pub. In fact, some folks put abstracts with presentations on the cv.

 

[KillerDiller]

I had the same question recently... do you typically just list poster presentation in the "presentations" section, or do you also list the published abstract from the journal or supplement under the "publications" section?

My own preference is to list it under presentations and that is it. People know that many of the bigger conferences publish abstracts. To list it separately seems like padding; you only go through one process to get accepted as a presenter and to have your abstract made available.

To me, the heading "publications" denotes articles published in peer-reviewed journals. Abstracts at conferences are often peer-reviewed, but they don't have the same rigorous standards as journals. If you really want to include it as another section, I'd recommend "published abstracts" instead.

 

[Marissa4usa]

Why not create its own section for it? I have a section that says "Published Abstracts" since that's what it is. It's not a presentation per se (since you're not presenting anything in the traditional sense), but it's also not a peer-reviewed publication.

 

[Pragma]

Why not create its own section for it? I have a section that says "Published Abstracts" since that's what it is. It's not a presentation per se (since you're not presenting anything in the traditional sense), but it's also not a peer-reviewed publication.

Well personally, I'd pick one or the other. I wouldn't have a problem with a "Published Abstract" section. But in my case, I don't have enough abstracts to make it look nice, so I just list the presentation. I would never list both.

I've commented before that I have seen people list the abstract with their publications. Terrible form, IMO.

 

[Ollie123]

Hah, yeah definitely don't put abstracts down as publications. That would look utterly ridiculous. I'd also pick one or the other ("published abstract" or presentation). I suppose it would also be okay to include in the citation for the presentation that the abstract was published.

I've got a bunch of published abstracts but just list them as presentations and haven't actually bothered noting which ones we're published. I can't imagine anyone looking at a CV actually caring about this - its a more a function of what your research area is and the particular conference you attend than anything to do with your research credentials. Its not like they carry any more "prestige" than a regular presentation.

 

[Pragma]

Hah, yeah definitely don't put abstracts down as publications. That would look utterly ridiculous. I'd also pick one or the other ("published abstract" or presentation). I suppose it would also be okay to include in the citation for the presentation that the abstract was published.

I've got a bunch of published abstracts but just list them as presentations and haven't actually bothered noting which ones we're published. I can't imagine anyone looking at a CV actually caring about this - its a more a function of what your research area is and the particular conference you attend than anything to do with your research credentials. Its not like they carry any more "prestige" than a regular presentation.

I had a supervisor that thought published abstracts were better than presentations. But this was also the same supervisor who listed them in their publication section. It was tough to keep my lips sealed about that one!

 

[AcronymAllergy]

Well personally, I'd pick one or the other. I wouldn't have a problem with a "Published Abstract" section. But in my case, I don't have enough abstracts to make it look nice, so I just list the presentation. I would never list both.

I've commented before that I have seen people list the abstract with their publications. Terrible form, IMO.

I've come across that as well, in addition to seeing book chapters and encyclopedia entries listed with peer-reviewed work (if there is any).