Presenting at a national meeting

Discussion in 'Physician Scientists' started by SomeFakeName, Nov 24, 2002.

  1. SomeFakeName

    SomeFakeName Membership Revoked
    Removed

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2002
    Messages:
    455
    Likes Received:
    0
    How do you go about presenting research that you've been working on at a national meeting? I've heard that you CANNOT present research that has been submitted/accepted to a journal or one that will be submitted in the future...so what does that mean??? Maybe I'm missing something that one of you can clarify...
     
  2. Note: SDN Members do not see this ad.

  3. tBw

    tBw totally deluded
    7+ Year Member

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2001
    Messages:
    5,442
    Likes Received:
    16
    It depends very much on the meeting. Some meetings are purposely set up with very few guest speakers, and are essentially "reviews" of the current state of affirs. These meetings invariably present entirely qwork that has been published with perhaps 30 seconds at the end of each talk where the presenter shoves in whatever their pet project is...

    Most meetings however are more general and the work presented will be in various stages of preparation. Some will be just conceived, some will be fully written up and on the shelves. It's generally frowned on to present something you did and published like 3 years ago and have presented before, but if it's just come out thats perfectly acceptable. Many conferences will specifically ask "What % of this work has been presented before and where?" when accepting abstracts.

    At the other end of the spectrum some people are paranoid about presenting research too early incase someone else sees what they are doing and beats them to the punchline. This occasionally happens but generally this is just paranoia.

    So I'm not sure how exactly to answer....generally some period of time before the conference you write an abstract describing the research you are working on. This is generally something you are fairly far along with but that you still have a bit of work to do on, so the abstracts are often slightly speculative as you don't yet know the answer - just the pilot study results say. The abstract is accepted and 6 months later, and much sooner than you anticipated, the conference is here. You have done only a fraction of the research you said you would in the abstract, or the research didn't go how you expected and so you took it in a different direction, and you spend 1 or 2 frantic weeks pulling some presentation together that is 80-90% related to the original abstract. You present it. Generally no one notices you deviated but at the cocktail parties in the evening everyone confesses to eachother and jokes about the 3 gallons of coffee they had to drink to get through and that they haven't seen their kids since kindergarten....

    More junior researchers generally play it much safer. They submit abstracts on work already complete and submitted but often not yet published.

    oh, and I'm at work right now. Why? Because I have a conference in 6 days time, the coffee urn is full, the research turned out nothing like I wrote in the abstract and - yup - it's frantic time!
     
  4. exigente chica

    7+ Year Member

    Joined:
    May 28, 2002
    Messages:
    1,330
    Likes Received:
    0
    Not sure what u are asking, but I have presented at several meetings, so I will be glad to help at any way that I can:D
     

Share This Page