Poster Presentation Question

[psypipe]

---

Members do not see this ad.

I have been volunteering in a Lab for about a month. The Full time RA is presenting a poster on techniques used in the lab. Since I helped her on some of the techniques, she included me on the poster. My name is fourth after the presenter's name; the name of my university is also included. I am not presenting the poster and I didn't do the poster. I was just included because the poster is about the lab and I am part of the lab. So I don't know what to make of this. Does this count as a poster presentation? Do I put in my CV when I am apply to grad school?

The last thing I want to do is take credit for someone else's work, but since my name is in there, I don't know.

 

[Zigman]

If you are listed as one of the authors (and it sounds as though you are) and the poster is being presented at a conference, then yes, this is something you would want to put on your CV. People's names get added to posters all the time (this happens with papers as well) even when they didn't help create the poster or write anything for the paper. You are still a legitimate coauthor, as you had something to do with the work that is being described and you were listed as one.

 

[psypipe]

If you are listed as one of the authors (and it sounds as though you are) and the poster is being presented at a conference, then yes, this is something you would want to put on your CV. People's names get added to posters all the time (this happens with papers as well) even when they didn't help create the poster or write anything for the paper. You are still a legitimate coauthor, as you had something to do with the work that is being described and you were listed as one.

Good to Know thank you.

 

[anxietypsych]

I decided to bring this thread to life since I have a question regarding poster presentations and CVs as well. I'm applying to grad school this year, and I am submitting an abstract for a poster for a conference that takes place May 2012. I will submit the abstract in October, but I won't find out whether it is accepted until after applications for grad school are due. Is it ok for me to list this on my CV? Obviously I will state that the abstract is submitted and not yet accepted.

 

[futureapppsy2]

I decided to bring this thread to life since I have a question regarding poster presentations and CVs as well. I'm applying to grad school this year, and I am submitting an abstract for a poster for a conference that takes place May 2012. I will submit the abstract in October, but I won't find out whether it is accepted until after applications for grad school are due. Is it ok for me to list this on my CV? Obviously I will state that the abstract is submitted and not yet accepted.

Do you have any other poster presentations? If so, I'd probably leave it off--I know some people put submitted posters proposals on their CV, but it seems a bit like "filler" to me. Of course, I do put submitted and in prep manuscripts in my CV, so I'm a bit of hypocrite, but I also think manuscripts require significantly more work than posters. Also, I have significantly more posters (15-ish) than I do peer-reviewed articles, so that plays into it, too.

If you don't have any other presentations, or only have 1 or 2, you *may* want to put the submission on your vita, but I'd still be iffy on it.

JMHO.

 

[PerhapsMaybeOk]

Do you have any other poster presentations? If so, I'd probably leave it off--I know some people put submitted posters proposals on their CV, but it seems a bit like "filler" to me. Of course, I do put submitted and in prep manuscripts in my CV, so I'm a bit of hypocrite, but I also think manuscripts require significantly more work than posters. Also, I have significantly more posters (15-ish) than I do peer-reviewed articles, so that plays into it, too.

If you don't have any other presentations, or only have 1 or 2, you *may* want to put the submission on your vita, but I'd still be iffy on it.

JMHO.

Don't know about you, but every poster I've submitted has gotten accepted. Seems like they love the conference fees hehe

Anyway, I'd say list it as it submitted. It's not like you are an established person who has dozens of pubs.

 

[Marissa4usa]

I don't think there is anything wrong with clearly listing it as submitted. I mean, yes, it's not guaranteed to be accepted but I think at the undergraduate stage I think it's acceptable to list a poster as submitted. It's not like you're saying poster submission "in preparation" when you haven't submitted yet (which would be a little weird) but I think if you have submitted, it's fine and it shows your involvement in research.

 

[Huxwell]

Do you have any other poster presentations? If so, I'd probably leave it off--I know some people put submitted posters proposals on their CV, but it seems a bit like "filler" to me. Of course, I do put submitted and in prep manuscripts in my CV, so I'm a bit of hypocrite, but I also think manuscripts require significantly more work than posters. Also, I have significantly more posters (15-ish) than I do peer-reviewed articles, so that plays into it, too.

If you don't have any other presentations, or only have 1 or 2, you *may* want to put the submission on your vita, but I'd still be iffy on it.

JMHO.

I'm not trying to sound like a jerk, but people really do this? Seems a bit disingenuous to me. My understanding of a CV is that it's meant to reflect completed work. "In press" counts because it has been accepted, but "in prep" means nothing. Even "submitted" is a bit sketchy to me- if the paper sucks and gets rejected, then you're giving a false impression.

 

[G Costanza]

I'm not trying to sound like a jerk, but people really do this? Seems a bit disingenuous to me. My understanding of a CV is that it's meant to reflect completed work. "In press" counts because it has been accepted, but "in prep" means nothing. Even "submitted" is a bit sketchy to me- if the paper sucks and gets rejected, then you're giving a false impression.

Do you only put your completed education or do you put an expected graduation date for the program you are in?

 

[futureapppsy2]

I'm not trying to sound like a jerk, but people really do this? Seems a bit disingenuous to me. My understanding of a CV is that it's meant to reflect completed work. "In press" counts because it has been accepted, but "in prep" means nothing. Even "submitted" is a bit sketchy to me- if the paper sucks and gets rejected, then you're giving a false impression.

Well, you should be clearly labeling them (I subhead mine in adiition to noting their status in the citation, so there's no mistaking them), so it's not like you are misrepresenting them as actual publications. As it was explained to me, submitted MS's actually sure you're getting stuff finished and out there and in prep MS's show a bit about your research agenda and that you are actively involved in research that will warrant authorship (you'd be surprised how many grad student--even if PhD programs--aren't). This can be important when you're just starting out, as I am (2nd year PhD student). When I get a fuller vita, I may drop them, but I've seen even established faculty do it. Otoh, some people do view it as padding, so YMMV.

I'm curious as to what others do/think about this. 🙂

 

[roubs]

Do you only put your completed education or do you put an expected graduation date for the program you are in?

Apple, meet orange.

You need some place on your cv to actually indicate what program you are enrolled in. Does that really seem similar to putting a publication on your cv that hasn't even been accepted anywhere yet?

Agree with Hux, if something hasn't been accepted it has no business being on your cv. It's borderline unethical imo--a quick read of your cv could cause people to think you have more publications than you actually have. My experience has been that many in the field would judge you pretty harshly for doing something like that.

 

[futureapppsy2]

Agree with Hux, if something hasn't been accepted it has no business being on your cv. It's borderline unethical imo--a quick read of your cv could cause people to think you have more publications than you actually have. My experience has been that many in the field would judge you pretty harshly for doing something like that.

I think unethical is too strong a word to use here (Having known people in this field who have done seriously, truly unethical things, I'm very hesitant to throw that word around. YMMV), especially as this practice is somewhat common in our field (I know *several* psych faculty here, across clinical, counseling, and school psych do it. Granted, they are mostly untenured, tenure-track assistant professors but at a clearly research-heavy R1. I also saw it done by a lot of faculty--tenured and non-tenured--at my not-nearly-as-research-heavy undergrad institution). Personally, I'd consider putting submitted and unfunded grants on a CV far more sketchy, and this is done a LOT by faculty, including very established ones.

ETA: I think if you lump them in with your actual articles, yes, that is probably deciptive, but if you put them under their own clear heading, I don't see a big issue. Likely not something I'd keep on there past the second or third year of grad school, but it works developmentally I think. Maybe it's just me??

 

[Ollie123]

I like seeing submitted and in prep on CVs (even for senior faculty) because it gives me a better sense of where they are taking their past research...if they are following up, moving down a different path, etc. I do the same thing - clearly labeled and in a separate section "Manuscripts under review or in preparation" that comes below my publication list. Haven't had anyone say anything about it yet.

It actually makes even more sense to me to list unfunded grants, as long as they are clearly labeled. Our faculty are usually pretty conservative, but explicitly encourage that. Given the amount of work it takes and the level of competition, even getting scored on a grant seems like a bigger accomplishment than publishing in many/most psych journals. They say that even showing that you are willing to go out there and try for funding says a lot at the junior level. While the number of people applying is growing, many psych department faculty will go their entire careers with minimal funding and may not even apply.

Of course, this all assumes you are talking about major NIH/NSF/SAMHSA type grants, and not $1000 from the university.

 

[roubs]

I think unethical is too strong a word to use here (Having known people in this field who have done seriously, truly unethical things, I'm very hesitant to throw that word around. YMMV), especially as this practice is somewhat common in our field (I know *several* psych faculty here, across clinical, counseling, and school psych do it. Granted, they are mostly untenured, tenure-track assistant professors but at a clearly research-heavy R1. I also saw it done by a lot of faculty--tenured and non-tenured--at my not-nearly-as-research-heavy undergrad institution). Personally, I'd consider putting submitted and unfunded grants on a CV far more sketchy, and this is done a LOT by faculty, including very established ones.

ETA: I think if you lump them in with your actual articles, yes, that is probably deciptive, but if you put them under their own clear heading, I don't see a big issue. Likely not something I'd keep on there past the second or third year of grad school, but it works developmentally I think. Maybe it's just me??

First, I'd note that I said it's borderline unethical meaning I think it is approaching that label but may or may not cross it. Also, I think your position of reserving ethics discussion for what you deem to be 'serious' issues does a disservice. I know you are not saying this explicitly, but it leaves the impression that if one isn't actively planning out Tuskegee Pt 2 then one shouldn't worry about ethics. Ethics come into play with both large and small issues, it's the magnitude of the consequences that differs depending on whether the particular issue is minor or more serious. Obviously this is a [citation needed] area, but I'd also wager that keeping aware of the minor ethical issues helps one stay far afield of the major ones.

As for this topic, creating a heading that is separate and away from "Publications", I would agree defuses the problem. During the early post when it was compared to the (In Press) label it made me think that people were just adding "tags" like (In Prep) or (Submitted) onto the publication lists so that anyone who was just casually looking at how much volume of work had been done in the past x years would see an inflated amount. So yes, obviously if people have a separate section they are not doing tags.

 

[futureapppsy2]

First, I'd note that I said it's borderline unethical meaning I think it is approaching that label but may or may not cross it. Also, I think your position of reserving ethics discussion for what you deem to be 'serious' issues does a disservice. I know you are not saying this explicitly, but it leaves the impression that if one isn't actively planning out Tuskegee Pt 2 then one shouldn't worry about ethics. Ethics come into play with both large and small issues, it's the magnitude of the consequences that differs depending on whether the particular issue is minor or more serious. Obviously this is a [citation needed] area, but I'd also wager that keeping aware of the minor ethical issues helps one stay far afield of the major ones.

As for this topic, creating a heading that is separate and away from "Publications", I would agree defuses the problem. During the early post when it was compared to the (In Press) label it made me think that people were just adding "tags" like (In Prep) or (Submitted) onto the publication lists so that anyone who was just casually looking at how much volume of work had been done in the past x years would see an inflated amount. So yes, obviously if people have a separate section they are not doing tags.

I think you may have misunderstood me.

I have no issue with discussing ethics issues (in fact, it's something I wish we would discuss a lot more in psychology--beyond "don't sleep with your client" and "don't traumatize research participants"), but I do have issues with labeling something as unethical just because you disagree with it--not saying you're doing that, but I've seen it done. If you think something might be unethical, by all means, discuss it, but IMO, don't label it as such right away or casually. Ethical dilemmas, especially when it rises to something you may have to report, are usually really complicated and not something to be decided lightly, as they often carry possible repercussions for those involved (clinicians/researchers, clients/participants, and reporters). I love it when people discuss the ethics of practices in our field--it's kneejerk or casual labeling of things as "unethical" that I have issue with. I guess I see the term as more of a "final judgement" after deliberation and discussion of the situation and would use something like "possibly unwise" or "questionable" rather than "unethical" when discussing something. It's a loaded term, legally and professionally

Ollie: Glad to see I'm not the only one who does this. I can see what you mean about reasons to include unfunded, scored, large grant apps.

 

[beantownpsych]

Create a separate heading for manuscripts under review and possibly depending on your university/academic medical center/stage in your career for ones in preparation. Personally I don't think in preparation pubs should be listed at all (too many people do this when they have written only a paragraph) but I know other people have different opinions. Do not under any circumstances list manuscripts under "Publications" if they aren't actually published/in press. It's misleading and frankly seen an inappropriate attempt to pad your CV...

 

[Ollie123]

FYI I just came across this working on my F31.

Per official NIH documentation "Manuscripts listed as in preparation should be included and identified" in the biosketch for students applying for fellowships. May apply for post-docs as well, didn't check. Faculty applying for larger grants are not allowed though.

Either way, if NIH not only allows but explicitly requests they be included in a biosketch, I certainly feel fine including it on my CV.

 

[wigflip]

Agree with Hux, if something hasn't been accepted it has no business being on your cv. It's borderline unethical imo--a quick read of your cv could cause people to think you have more publications than you actually have. My experience has been that many in the field would judge you pretty harshly for doing something like that.

That's pretty interesting--I'd never heard that. Do you think the "harsh judgement" is specific to the field of psych, or applies more generally to academics in other disciplines also? I ask because I don't think I've ever seen a grad student or recent graduate CV WITHOUT the "in prep" and "in progress" categories (usually "in review" as well). I've seen profs with these categories too.

 

[beantownpsych]

FYI I just came across this working on my F31.

Per official NIH documentation "Manuscripts listed as in preparation should be included and identified" in the biosketch for students applying for fellowships. May apply for post-docs as well, didn't check. Faculty applying for larger grants are not allowed though.

Either way, if NIH not only allows but explicitly requests they be included in a biosketch, I certainly feel fine including it on my CV.

The majority of F31's I've seen do create a separate heading for things not actually published. After F31's (perhaps even an F32--not sure about that one), NIH says explicitly not to include manuscripts in prep or under review (although some people disregard that instruction). Most professors I know have a separate section for manuscripts under review but list w/o the name of the journal (and leave off the in prep stuff).

I think it makes sense to be cautious to avoid even the chance of appearing like you're padding your CV.

 

[roubs]

That's pretty interesting--I'd never heard that. Do you think the "harsh judgement" is specific to the field of psych, or applies more generally to academics in other disciplines also? I ask because I don't think I've ever seen a grad student or recent graduate CV WITHOUT the "in prep" and "in progress" categories (usually "in review" as well). I've seen profs with these categories too.

I clarified later that I think it's creating a false impression if you just have a list of pubs and put (Submitted) next to some. The OP saying "I will state that the abstract is submitted" made me think of that scenario, having a separate section relieves the potential misrepresentation.