Published abstract

[Ollie123]

---

Members don't see this ad.

Okay, so maybe I should know this, but what is the accepted definition for this in psychology?

I hear references to them on occasion here, but I've never seen anything designated as a published abstract on someone's CV. Are people just talking about posters/talks where a compilation of the abstracts are sent out to journal subscribers? If so, don't pretty much all major conferences do this, and how is it different from just listing the poster? Is it only if its officially labeled a "supplemental issue" and not just a conference program? I've never seen an abstract published on its own other than when societies with journals send out just about everything from the conference, so I'm confused where this comes from, and whether it is meaningful enough to warrant including on a CV.

 

[PsyDr]

it's just a reference to the abstracts published in journals, usually related to talks or posters. instead of separating the posters and articles section of one's vitae, you can simply have a "publications" section.

listing these abstracts under the publications section of one's vitae is a real cheap way to boost your vitae. but it's pretty easy to spot, because the publications are one page in length.

 

[Ollie123]

Okay, that makes sense. It seemed like people were giving these some sort of special designation (though it may have been my imagination), but from my perspective it seems like every submission except for little local/department stuff is a "published abstract"...hence my confusion.

One more random question. Presenting the same poster twice, once at a little "scientific retreat" put together just for folks at our hospital (just for fun and because its a employee survey so folks might be curious), and once at a real conference. It seems like cheating to put both while doing basically no work other than showing up, and super obvious to have two things with the same title. Would this look bad?

Truth be told, I don't think my presentations section is going to be hurting for length, so my inclination is to leave it off, but figured I'd see what others think.

 

[KillerDiller]

See, my first inclination would be to say that a published abstract refers to the abstract students submit in order to get their work listed in things like "Dissertation Abstracts International" and...whatever the equivalent is for Masters theses (dang it, I know I had to submit something for that, but I don't even remember the name of the publication).

For what its worth, I don't list my "published abstract" on my CV and simply list any posters or talks I give at conferences as, well, posters and talks.

 

[Cigolon]

See, my first inclination would be to say that a published abstract refers to the abstract students submit in order to get their work listed in things like "Dissertation Abstracts International" and...whatever the equivalent is for Masters theses (dang it, I know I had to submit something for that, but I don't even remember the name of the publication).

For what its worth, I don't list my "published abstract" on my CV and simply list any posters or talks I give at conferences as, well, posters and talks.

+1000. be up front and don't pad the CV. everyone sees it for what it is. if you publish, list it. if you present, list it like that.

 

[cmuhooligan]

Okay, that makes sense. It seemed like people were giving these some sort of special designation (though it may have been my imagination), but from my perspective it seems like every submission except for little local/department stuff is a "published abstract"...hence my confusion.

One more random question. Presenting the same poster twice, once at a little "scientific retreat" put together just for folks at our hospital (just for fun and because its a employee survey so folks might be curious), and once at a real conference. It seems like cheating to put both while doing basically no work other than showing up, and super obvious to have two things with the same title. Would this look bad?

Truth be told, I don't think my presentations section is going to be hurting for length, so my inclination is to leave it off, but figured I'd see what others think.

I don't think it's cheating at all. I've been told that you can present the same poster if the audience at the conferences you present are rather different. For example, I presented at a university-wide graduate student symposium, and then presented the same poster at APS. I also listed both on my c.v.; who knows, maybe that does look cheesy, but I haven't received any flack from it.

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

I'm presenting very similar work at AAS this year, that I presented at a state-level conference this past fall. I'm tweaking it and refining a few things, but essentially it is the same thing. I probably wouldn't go and try and present it again, though my next step is working on the manuscript for publication.

 

[LM02]

Some conferences are hosted by societies or organizations that also publish their own journals. In several of these cases, they will actually publish the abstracts presented at the conference in an issue of the journal. These are what people refer to as "published abstracts." For us psychologists, published abstracts are usually generated from presentations in the areas of behavioral medicine, addictions, and psychiatry. But from general psychology conferences (e.g., APA, ABCT)? It's not very common.

If an abstract simply appears in a conference program, or program addendum, this is NOT a published abstract. In this case, you would simply list it on your CV in the "conference presentations" section (or whatever you choose to call it).

As a general rule, if you are going to present the same thing at various conferences, it might be wise to at least modify the title a bit. It doesn't look good to have multiple presentations with the same title on one's CV. You should have enough in the research hopper to not have to recycle the same talk or poster over and over again...

 

[Ollie123]

As a general rule, if you are going to present the same thing at various conferences, it might be wise to at least modify the title a bit. It doesn't look good to have multiple presentations with the same title on one's CV.

See that sounds even worse to me, since I'd be changing the title just to "fool" people reading my CV into thinking I did more work. I've got plenty of other stuff I can put together, but I'm presenting this data because folks attending might be interested (its a survey they probably responded to, after all, about a new company policy). I doubt "Presented data on rinky-dink survey study at hospital scientific retreat" would get me much of anything anyways Perhaps that's a sign I should just leave it off. Truth be told this is probably such a minor issue it really doesn't matter - I'll probably have 20 of the freakin things by the time I graduate anyways, so 1 isn't going to make or break me. Just wondered if there was an official policy on things like that.

 

[LM02]

See that sounds even worse to me, since I'd be changing the title just to "fool" people reading my CV into thinking I did more work.

Nah, it's pretty common. But by modifying the title a little, you're at least showing that you're making an effort!

With that said, your local hospital retreat might fall more into an "invited talk" or something along those lines, which you could put in another part of your vita (thus eliminating the chance that someone will see a presentation with the same exact title in the same section of your CV).