Submitting an abstract

[starstarie]

---

Members do not see this ad.

Hey all,

I am planning on submitting an abstract for a conference this weekend and I had a few questions. I don't have a lot of experience in this, so I was wondering if others could comment.

How likely is it to get submitted? Is it kinda that most of the abstracts get accepted, or do you have to have a really great project? There is an option for poster, oral presentation, or either. Is one "better" to do/more difficult to get, or is it more of a matter of preference?

Thanks all!!

 

[hurryupnwait]

Chances of acceptance depend on the conference/society for which you're submitting -- some are more selective than others, and some will accept almost every abstract. Usually, abstracts are considered for oral first then the remainders are selected for poster.

 

[Law2Doc]

Hey all,

I am planning on submitting an abstract for a conference this weekend and I had a few questions. I don't have a lot of experience in this, so I was wondering if others could comment.

How likely is it to get submitted? Is it kinda that most of the abstracts get accepted, or do you have to have a really great project? There is an option for poster, oral presentation, or either. Is one "better" to do/more difficult to get, or is it more of a matter of preference?

Thanks all!!

Agree in part with the prior post. The field and conference decide the acceptance rate. The biggest conferences get thousands of abstracts for hundreds of spots. Smaller conferences might get something more like 20% more abstracts than they need. It's rarely/never an "every abstract gets in" situation.

As for poster vs presentation, many conferences do give YOU the choice, it's not whatever is left over like the prior poster suggested. Presentation is more prestigious and more selective. So you need to decide how strong/important the work is. If it not something people in the field would likely want to sit in a lecture hall and hear about, or if its better presented visually with pictures, do the poster. If you think you did important work and want the experience in public speaking, choose the presentation.

 

[mimelim]

Agree in part with the prior post. The field and conference decide the acceptance rate. The biggest conferences get thousands of abstracts for hundreds of spots. Smaller conferences might get something more like 20% more abstracts than they need. It's rarely/never an "every abstract gets in" situation.

As for poster vs presentation, many conferences do give YOU the choice, it's not whatever is left over like the prior poster suggested. Presentation is more prestigious and more selective. So you need to decide how strong/important the work is. If it not something people in the field would likely want to sit in a lecture hall and hear about, or if its better presented visually with pictures, do the poster. If you think you did important work and want the experience in public speaking, choose the presentation.

This depends entirely on the field you are in. In surgery, most local meetings and institution conferences (~50-100 people) will accept virtually every abstract that is sent in. Regional, national and international things drop quickly. I'm sure that this is true in many specialties. Also, in surgery, most conferences do not give you the choice. You submit, they pick and let you know not only presentation vs. poster, but also what kind of presentation. I submitted 5 abstracts last month. 1 rejection (regional, 3 other abstracts accepted from our institution including another one of mine) x2 20 minute presentations, and x2 5 minute presentations. Never had an option to pick what I was submitting for.