research section on CAS

[akademix]

-

 

[shemarty]

I went with this format below, in reverse chronological order. I felt like it saved space because I didn't have to repeat the title of a project if I had both a paper and a poster for it.

Author list. Title of project #1. Citation if published, or status of manuscript
- Poster: meeting
- Oral: meeting

Author list. Title of project #2. Citation if published, or status of manuscript
- Poster: meeting
- Oral: meeting

Author list. Title of project #3. Citation if published, or status of manuscript
- Poster: meeting
- Oral: meeting

 

[kwel]

What's wrong with grouping it as: pubs, pubs in preparation, abstracts, posters? Any downside?

 

[cyclopz]

What's wrong with grouping it as: pubs, pubs in preparation, abstracts, posters? Any downside?

Nope, I'm basically doing it your way. Makes no difference. There's no set way.

 

[razkui]

Are you guys BOLDING your name in the author list for pubs/posters?

Also, are we supposed to put a one-liner on describing our research for each entry?

thanks!

 

[razkui]

I went with this format below, in reverse chronological order. I felt like it saved space because I didn't have to repeat the title of a project if I had both a paper and a poster for it.

Author list. Title of project #1. Citation if published, or status of manuscript
- Poster: meeting
- Oral: meeting

Author list. Title of project #2. Citation if published, or status of manuscript
- Poster: meeting
- Oral: meeting

Author list. Title of project #3. Citation if published, or status of manuscript
- Poster: meeting
- Oral: meeting

This format seems excellent, space saving! Did others do it like this too? or how else did you all do it?