What counts as a poster?

[Youngm2194]

Sorry if this is a dumb question, but I am second author on a poster (first is my PI) at a top 5 med school. This is going to be turned into a publication soon, but I don't think it will be by the time I apply. This poster was presented at a national neurogenesis conference, but by my PI and not me. What does this count as? I am on it but I didn't present it

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[efle]

at a top 5 med school.

why do people always include this lmao

This is going to be turned into a publication soon, but I don't think it will be by the time I apply. This poster was presented at a national neurogenesis conference, but by my PI and not me. What does this count as? I am on it but I didn't present it

You can list posters/abstracts that you were named as a contributor for but that your PI traveled to go present.

Or at least I hope the above is true because I did that.

 

[deleted781806]

I'm fairly certain that you can list any posters that you're name is on, but make sure that there is a way to differentiate between posters that you personally presented vs. posters that were presented by someone else. Not exactly sure how that would work out (besides just being the first author), but I think it's alright. If this is a question relating to how one can put this on AMCAS, just add a qualifying statement to the short description space that they give you.

But yeah, the whole top 5 thing is a bit silly, it's where the poster is presented that counts, not where it came from.

 

[Goro]

It's a poster and yes, it counts nicely for your CV, even if you didn't present said poster.

BTW, I can think of at least eight schools that qualify as "top 5".

Sorry if this is a dumb question, but I am second author on a poster (first is my PI) at a top 5 med school. This is going to be turned into a publication soon, but I don't think it will be by the time I apply. This poster was presented at a national neurogenesis conference, but by my PI and not me. What does this count as? I am on it but I didn't present it

 

[Lawpy]

It's a poster and yes, it counts nicely for your CV, even if you didn't present said poster.

Really? Because some academia folks like @JustAPhD and @aldol16 disagree with listing posters not presented by you in your CV since doing so is fluff and padding. It's listing first-author presentations presented at conferences that matters.

Agreed listing them on AMCAS would be fine.

 

[efle]

I'm gonna guess Goro means it's good for a typical premed to attach to their app, not people with PhDs

 

[Lawpy]

I'm gonna guess Goro means it's good for a typical premed to attach to their app, not people with PhDs

Yeah listing them on application is fine. But listing them in CV (MD, PhD, whatever) is apparently not okay since it's fluff.

 

[Goro]

It's not something that NIH will want on a Biosketch, but for CV, it still counts.

I'm gonna guess Goro means it's good for a typical premed to attach to their app, not people with PhDs

 

[mistafab]

On a CV - put everything. It doesn't matter if you presented it or not. You had an abstract accepted at a conference - this is objective evidence of productivity.

 

[Lawpy]

It's not something that NIH will want on a Biosketch, but for CV, it still counts.

On a CV - put everything. It doesn't matter if you presented it or not. You had an abstract accepted at a conference - this is objective evidence of productivity.

I'll have to tag @mimelim for additional input. And i care only about medical CVs. You could be right though

 

[aldol16]

Yeah listing them on application is fine. But listing them in CV (MD, PhD, whatever) is apparently not okay since it's fluff.

It's not something that NIH will want on a Biosketch, but for CV, it still counts.

There's a difference between "it counts" and "it's generally accepted." For example, people can and do put every grant they ever got on their CVs - like summer research grants as an undergrad, etc. Do they count as money you've previously received for research? Sure. But do academics like me who see these CVs ignore it and think it's just fluff? You bet.

I think I've said this before, but what I say applies to academic CVs for academic positions. I don't know why a pre-med would need a CV but I would imagine that the people reading them will have higher tolerance for BS because of pre-meds' limited experiences.

 

[Goro]

It's evidence of productivity. Not everybody can get a publication or give a talk, whether pre-med or med student

There's a difference between "it counts" and "it's generally accepted." For example, people can and do put every grant they ever got on their CVs - like summer research grants as an undergrad, etc. Do they count as money you've previously received for research? Sure. But do academics like me who see these CVs ignore it and think it's just fluff? You bet.

I think I've said this before, but what I say applies to academic CVs for academic positions. I don't know why a pre-med would need a CV but I would imagine that the people reading them will have higher tolerance for BS because of pre-meds' limited experiences.

 

[aldol16]

It's evidence of productivity. Not everybody can get a publication or give a talk, whether pre-med or med student

Like I said, what I say applies to academic CVs. If you're applying for an academic post and your best evidence of productivity is a second-author poster, sorry, you're not getting that position. The point of any academic post is to produce some original work as first-author - either in poster or publication form, with the understanding that given time, you will develop that poster into a publication of some sort.

If you're talking about a pre-med or medical student, then like I said, there is probably leeway because they're not applying for academic posts.

 

[Lawpy]

There's a difference between "it counts" and "it's generally accepted." For example, people can and do put every grant they ever got on their CVs - like summer research grants as an undergrad, etc. Do they count as money you've previously received for research? Sure. But do academics like me who see these CVs ignore it and think it's just fluff? You bet.

I think I've said this before, but what I say applies to academic CVs for academic positions. I don't know why a pre-med would need a CV but I would imagine that the people reading them will have higher tolerance for BS because of pre-meds' limited experiences.

It's evidence of productivity. Not everybody can get a publication or give a talk, whether pre-med or med student

Like I said, what I say applies to academic CVs. If you're applying for an academic post and your best evidence of productivity is a second-author poster, sorry, you're not getting that position. The point of any academic post is to produce some original work as first-author - either in poster or publication form, with the understanding that given time, you will develop that poster into a publication of some sort.

If you're talking about a pre-med or medical student, then like I said, there is probably leeway because they're not applying for academic posts.

I'm curious what medical CV requirements are and the consensus is split again.

@Neuronix i know you're usually there in Physicians Scientists forum but could you help clarify the answer? Can coauthor abstracts where I did not present in conferences be listed in my CV? Or should they be removed? I'm thinking MD/PhD requirements are most similar to MD requirements for crafting good CVs.

 

[Goro]

Oh, fer cryin' out loud, Aldol! Stop obsessing about my use of the term CV.

OP is a pre-med, and looking to see if the poster counts for his/her app form. It does, in my book. OP isn't looking for a Faculty position. Even if OP is a medical student, then it would count for residency.

Obviously, Faculty jobs are different matter.

Like I said, what I say applies to academic CVs. If you're applying for an academic post and your best evidence of productivity is a second-author poster, sorry, you're not getting that position. The point of any academic post is to produce some original work as first-author - either in poster or publication form, with the understanding that given time, you will develop that poster into a publication of some sort.

If you're talking about a pre-med or medical student, then like I said, there is probably leeway because they're not applying for academic posts.

 

[Lawpy]

Oh, fer cryin' out loud, Aldol! Stop obsessing about my use of the term CV.

OP is a pre-med, and looking to see if the poster counts for his/her app form. It does, in my book. OP isn't looking for a Faculty position. Even if OP is a medical student, then it would count for residency.

Obviously, Faculty jobs are different matter.

I mean CVs are generally used for applying to faculty jobs but it's a good idea to frame CVs to meet appropriate standards early on to avoid fluff. I don't know what those standards are.

Can someone applying for a faculty job list coauthor abstracts that they did not present at conference in their CV? Or is that fluff?

 

[mimelim]

Sorry if this is a dumb question, but I am second author on a poster (first is my PI) at a top 5 med school. This is going to be turned into a publication soon, but I don't think it will be by the time I apply. This poster was presented at a national neurogenesis conference, but by my PI and not me. What does this count as? I am on it but I didn't present it

Really? Because some academia folks like @JustAPhD and @aldol16 disagree with listing posters not presented by you in your CV since doing so is fluff and padding. It's listing first-author presentations presented at conferences that matters.

Agreed listing them on AMCAS would be fine.

There's a difference between "it counts" and "it's generally accepted." For example, people can and do put every grant they ever got on their CVs - like summer research grants as an undergrad, etc. Do they count as money you've previously received for research? Sure. But do academics like me who see these CVs ignore it and think it's just fluff? You bet.

I think I've said this before, but what I say applies to academic CVs for academic positions. I don't know why a pre-med would need a CV but I would imagine that the people reading them will have higher tolerance for BS because of pre-meds' limited experiences.

I will only talk about what I know, ie. what people do in medical school and residency admissions.

First, there are no CV requirements, it is a non-standardized document. Formatting varies and how things are included follows a general formula, but far from consistent.

In my experience, students and residents will have a Publications section, Presentation, and an Abstract section. Sometimes the presentation/abstract sections are combined into one. Anything that your name is on that you did not present yourself would go in the abstract section. Up until a year or so ago, mine had 3 sections. But, after a while it becomes too unwieldy and frankly, while I could keep track of all the random stuff my name ends up on, there is no point based on where I am at right now career wise, so I dropped it off.

I hate the term "counts" when it comes to any of this. None of this is a checkbox, requirement or anything like that. It is about building context for whatever you are submitting it to. What is appropriate simply depends on what you are applying for.

 

[Goro]

I use the term CV for "resume or the list of your qualifications for anything". It's NOT merely for Faculty jobs.

And yes, they can use it for a Faculty job hire. It won't count for much, but it's collective we look at...it's part of a body of material that shows the applicant is productive.

Posters aren't that important in the scheme of things...my list only goes back for the past five years. My CV would be like 100 pages long if I listed every poster my name was on.

And fer crissakes, listen to Mimelim.

I mean CVs are generally used for applying to faculty jobs but it's a good idea to frame CVs to meet appropriate standards early on to avoid fluff. I don't know what those standards are.

Can someone applying for a faculty job list coauthor abstracts that they did not present at conference in their CV? Or is that fluff?

 

[mimelim]

I mean CVs are generally used for applying to faculty jobs but it's a good idea to frame CVs to meet appropriate standards early on to avoid fluff. I don't know what those standards are.

Can someone applying for a faculty job list coauthor abstracts that they did not present at conference in their CV? Or is that fluff?

Eh, every single one of our residents maintains a CV. They are used for random stuff, not just faculty jobs. I have sent mine out twice this year already for credentialing/clinical trial stuff and after being put up for a board of directors.

 

[Lawpy]

I will only talk about what I know, ie. what people do in medical school and residency admissions.

First, there are no CV requirements, it is a non-standardized document. Formatting varies and how things are included follows a general formula, but far from consistent.

In my experience, students and residents will have a Publications section, Presentation, and an Abstract section. Sometimes the presentation/abstract sections are combined into one. Anything that your name is on that you did not present yourself would go in the abstract section. Up until a year or so ago, mine had 3 sections. But, after a while it becomes too unwieldy and frankly, while I could keep track of all the random stuff my name ends up on, there is no point based on where I am at right now career wise, so I dropped it off.

I hate the term "counts" when it comes to any of this. None of this is a checkbox, requirement or anything like that. It is about building context for whatever you are submitting it to. What is appropriate simply depends on what you are applying for.

I use the term CV for "resume or the list of your qualifications for anything". It's NOT merely for Faculty jobs.

And yes, they can use it for a Faculty job hire. It won't count for much, but it's collective we look at...it's part of a body of material that shows the applicant is productive.

Posters aren't that important in the scheme of things...my list only goes back for the past five years. My CV would be like 100 pages long if I listed every poster my name was on.

And fer crissakes, listen to Mimelim.

Okay whew! Thanks for the consensus. I was initially thinking of Publications, Presentations, and Abstracts sections since that's what my research group told me. It got confusing when some people were arguing against the Abstracts section and I wanted to resolve the matter effectively.

Dropping off the Abstracts section when the CV becomes long and I become more established researcher makes sense. Until then, it's better to include it.

I'll bookmark the discussion for future reference.

 

[aldol16]

Oh, fer cryin' out loud, Aldol! Stop obsessing about my use of the term CV.

I use the term CV for "resume or the list of your qualifications for anything". It's NOT merely for Faculty jobs.

Since you're an academic yourself, you should know the purpose for CVs in the first place as opposed to resumes and not use them to mean the same thing.

And yes, they can use it for a Faculty job hire. It won't count for much, but it's collective we look at...it's part of a body of material that shows the applicant is productive.

I don't know what field you are in but it's a waste of my time and my colleagues' time when applicants for post-doc positions or even faculty positions (the ones I end up seeing) list a bunch of abstracts they had only a small role in. Since CVs are usually organized in reverse chronological order, it takes us longer to wade through the BS fluff to get to the significant projects. At some point, I just stop reading and let their research presentations speak for themselves which, of course, defeats the purpose of the CV.

 

[Goro]

Putting on Ignore. You'll feel some pressure between the eyes.

Since you're an academic yourself, you should know the purpose for CVs in the first place as opposed to resumes and not use them to mean the same thing.



I don't know what field you are in but it's a waste of my time and my colleagues' time when applicants for post-doc positions or even faculty positions (the ones I end up seeing) list a bunch of abstracts they had only a small role in. Since CVs are usually organized in reverse chronological order, it takes us longer to wade through the BS fluff to get to the significant projects. At some point, I just stop reading and let their research presentations speak for themselves which, of course, defeats the purpose of the CV.

 

[Matthew9Thirtyfive]

The neuroticism and pedantry in this thread is strong, even for SDN.

 

[aldol16]

The neuroticism and pedantry in this thread is strong, even for SDN.

This is why SDN exists.

 

[Matthew9Thirtyfive]

This is why SDN exists.

Clearly.

 

[Lawpy]

The neuroticism and pedantry in this thread is strong, even for SDN.

This is why SDN exists.

Clearly.

i'm just happy the issue is finally resolved and the answer agrees with what i experienced

 

[aldol16]

Putting on Ignore. You'll feel some pressure between the eyes.

 

[aaronrodgers]

I think you can be a little more mature than that. Especially since it's an anonymous online forum, the perception of the SDN community can be influenced by the posts you make. Let's keep it healthy.

 

[MusicDOc124]

I quickly scrolled through, but I think I saw one or 2 already say this, but just in case - yes, list it, but note that you were not the presenter for it.

 

[Lawpy]

I quickly scrolled through, but I think I saw one or 2 already say this, but just in case - yes, list it, but note that you were not the presenter for it.

I think this would be generally obvious because the first author of the poster/abstract is usually the presenter.

I like @mimelim suggestion of listing whatever abstracts/posters I'm on but did not present as a separate section from Presentations.

 

[MusicDOc124]

I think this would be generally obvious because the first author of the poster/abstract is usually the presenter.

I like @mimelim suggestion of listing whatever abstracts/posters I'm on but did not present as a separate section from Presentations.

I don't think it's as obvious if the question is being asked, and I've been first author on things I did not present, but were presented by the 2nd author, and vice versa.. I have presented projects in which I was not the first author. I also think that listing them separately is a good thing.

 

[ak-aka-dak]

What if an applicant makes a poster for a PI and that PI presents the poster at a conference, but the poster maker is not an author of any of the research work? Should it be listed on a med school application and noted that the applicant made a poster that was presented at a conference, but was not an author/had no part in the research, or should that activity not be listed?

 

[Matthew9Thirtyfive]

What if an applicant makes a poster for a PI and that PI presents the poster at a conference, but the poster maker is not an author of any of the research work? Should it be listed on a med school application and noted that the applicant made a poster that was presented at a conference, but was not an author/had no part in the research, or should that activity not be listed?

If the only thing you did was something a Kinko's employee could have done, I'd say no. JMHO though.

 

[Frogger27]

Question.. if you have an abstract that gets published and is also presented as a poster at a conference, do you list it under both abstract (with journal info) and presentation (with conference name and date)?

 

[MusicDOc124]

I'd say yes. They are two different things - one is doing the research/writing, the other is speaking.

 

[mistafab]

Abstracts ARE posters guys. You only label something a "presentation" if you were selected at the conference to present on your abstract's topic. I.e. It is a big deal to do a presentation. You do not list an abstract as both an abstract and presentation. A poster is not a presentation - It is an abstract that was accepted at the conference but was not chosen to be a presentation.

Posters are 100% not a big deal in and of itself. You and a team do work, and one person is available to go to the conference that week. Of course you all get credit for the abstract/poster that was accepted at the conference. Put it on your CV so that you can keep track of all your productivity over the years. Standing in front of a poster for 3 hours and talking to fanboys doesn't give you any more clout than just being in on abstract at all.

Question.. if you have an abstract that gets published and is also presented as a poster at a conference, do you list it under both abstract (with journal info) and presentation (with conference name and date)?

I'd say yes. They are two different things - one is doing the research/writing, the other is speaking.

 

[aldol16]

I think you can be a little more mature than that. Especially since it's an anonymous online forum, the perception of the SDN community can be influenced by the posts you make. Let's keep it healthy.

I appreciate the comment. I don't think I'm the one being immature. I also don't believe in constructing a PC image of myself that isn't true. If I see BS, I call it. If people don't like being called out on their BS, then they are free to press the ignore button. Simple as that.

 

[Lawpy]

Abstracts ARE posters guys. You only label something a "presentation" if you were selected at the conference to present on your abstract's topic. I.e. It is a big deal to do a presentation. You do not list an abstract as both an abstract and presentation. A poster is not a presentation - It is an abstract that was accepted at the conference but was not chosen to be a presentation.

Posters are 100% not a big deal in and of itself. You and a team do work, and one person is available to go to the conference that week. Of course you all get credit for the abstract/poster that was accepted at the conference. Put it on your CV so that you can keep track of all your productivity over the years. Standing in front of a poster for 3 hours and talking to fanboys doesn't give you any more clout than just being in on abstract at all.

Wait what? A presentation = invited talk? I thought it refers to anyone who attends and presents their abstract/poster at a meeting.

 

[aldol16]

Wait what? A presentation = invited talk? I thought it refers to anyone who attends and presents their abstract/poster at a meeting.

People do it both ways. If they include posters in the presentations and they have invited talks as well, they specify what the "presentation" is - either a poster or an invited talk, etc. You really don't get invited talks until later in your academic career when people actually care enough about what you have to talk about to sit down and listen to you.

 

[Lawpy]

People do it both ways. If they include posters in the presentations and they have invited talks as well, they specify what the "presentation" is - either a poster or an invited talk, etc. You really don't get invited talks until later in your academic career when people actually care enough about what you have to talk about to sit down and listen to you.

Yeah invited talks are rare. I was thinking of this the whole time:

Presentations = what i present in meetings

Abstracts = what others present at meetings but i contributed enough to be listed as a coauthor

Abstracts aren't always posters. They can include talks and powerpoint presentations.

 

[aldol16]

Yeah invited talks are rare. I was thinking of this the whole time:

Presentations = what i present in meetings

Abstracts = what others present at meetings but i contributed enough to be listed as a coauthor

Abstracts aren't always posters. They can include talks and powerpoint presentations.

I'm not sure I would list talks or actual PowerPoint presentations where you have people listening to you speak as abstracts. These presentations are usually quite important and it's the people who are doing high-impact work (so usually senior graduate students or post-docs) that get to present their work to people in their field. You have to remember, PIs have limited time and if you're giving a presentation during a regional or national meeting, it has to be important enough for them to waste their time.

Like I said, I would list under "presentations" your posters or other oral presentations you've given at regional or national conferences. You already know how I feel about the abstracts section.

 

[Lawpy]

I'm not sure I would list talks or actual PowerPoint presentations where you have people listening to you speak as abstracts. These presentations are usually quite important and it's the people who are doing high-impact work (so usually senior graduate students or post-docs) that get to present their work to people in their field. You have to remember, PIs have limited time and if you're giving a presentation during a regional or national meeting, it has to be important enough for them to waste their time.

Like I said, I would list under "presentations" your posters or other oral presentations you've given at regional or national conferences. You already know how I feel about the abstracts section.

Alright thanks! Just wanted to clarify and resolve the dilemma/ambiguities.

 

[MusicDOc124]

Abstracts ARE posters guys. You only label something a "presentation" if you were selected at the conference to present on your abstract's topic. I.e. It is a big deal to do a presentation. You do not list an abstract as both an abstract and presentation. A poster is not a presentation - It is an abstract that was accepted at the conference but was not chosen to be a presentation.

Posters are 100% not a big deal in and of itself. You and a team do work, and one person is available to go to the conference that week. Of course you all get credit for the abstract/poster that was accepted at the conference. Put it on your CV so that you can keep track of all your productivity over the years. Standing in front of a poster for 3 hours and talking to fanboys doesn't give you any more clout than just being in on abstract at all.

That's what I said...

 

[aldol16]

Alright thanks! Just wanted to clarify and resolve the dilemma/ambiguities.

As an undergraduate and most likely as a medical student as well, you won't have to worry about oral presentations. Maybe if there is a substantial project later on in med school you'll have to add it but in general, for an academic CV, the most important thing is the publications section. When you go up for tenure, nobody goes "Oh, this guy presented 20 posters! He's so productive even though he's only published once!" I know tenure doesn't apply to anybody but professors, but the idea is the same - if you're productive, those posters and abstracts shouldn't last too long on your CV before being turned into publications (no double listing unless you want to make it obvious you're padding).

 

[Lawpy]

As an undergraduate and most likely as a medical student as well, you won't have to worry about oral presentations. Maybe if there is a substantial project later on in med school you'll have to add it but in general, for an academic CV, the most important thing is the publications section. When you go up for tenure, nobody goes "Oh, this guy presented 20 posters! He's so productive even though he's only published once!" I know tenure doesn't apply to anybody but professors, but the idea is the same - if you're productive, those posters and abstracts shouldn't last too long on your CV before being turned into publications (no double listing unless you want to make it obvious you're padding).

Isn't faculty productivity evaluated by their h-index which is based on quality of publications? How reliable is it?

 

[aldol16]

Isn't faculty productivity evaluated by their h-index which is based on quality of publications? How reliable is it?

For my field, we don't use that number specifically but productivity is evaluated in part by publication and citations. Because we don't use it specifically, I can't tell you how predictive it is although I can say that it can only be a rough measure because some seminal papers aren't noticed immediately because the full implications of their results aren't grasped until later on and so it's not until later on that the papers get a lot of attention. There's actually a lot of banter among faculty members where some will criticize others for flocking to fields that are "in" currently just so they get cited a lot. For instance, nanotech is super "in" right now and so the citations in that field are through the roof. But in ten years, that may no longer be the case and it certainly wasn't the case just ten years ago.

For tenure, other things get evaluated such as how much money the PI is bringing in as well as teaching to some extent (course reviews, ratings, etc.). If you're interested in how PI's are measured in terms of productivity, a good place to start is Emory's presentation: http://med.emory.edu/faculty_dev/clinical/CRB Presentations/Measures of Success - Griendling.pdf

 

[Frogger27]

Abstracts ARE posters guys. You only label something a "presentation" if you were selected at the conference to present on your abstract's topic. I.e. It is a big deal to do a presentation. You do not list an abstract as both an abstract and presentation. A poster is not a presentation - It is an abstract that was accepted at the conference but was not chosen to be a presentation.

Posters are 100% not a big deal in and of itself. You and a team do work, and one person is available to go to the conference that week. Of course you all get credit for the abstract/poster that was accepted at the conference. Put it on your CV so that you can keep track of all your productivity over the years. Standing in front of a poster for 3 hours and talking to fanboys doesn't give you any more clout than just being in on abstract at all.

I thought you list them separately on a CV if the abstract gets published (because not all do) and is presented as a poster at the conference. Is it only oral presentations that get listed under presentations or does poster also?

 

[Lawpy]

For my field, we don't use that number specifically but productivity is evaluated in part by publication and citations. Because we don't use it specifically, I can't tell you how predictive it is although I can say that it can only be a rough measure because some seminal papers aren't noticed immediately because the full implications of their results aren't grasped until later on and so it's not until later on that the papers get a lot of attention. There's actually a lot of banter among faculty members where some will criticize others for flocking to fields that are "in" currently just so they get cited a lot. For instance, nanotech is super "in" right now and so the citations in that field are through the roof. But in ten years, that may no longer be the case and it certainly wasn't the case just ten years ago.

For tenure, other things get evaluated such as how much money the PI is bringing in as well as teaching to some extent (course reviews, ratings, etc.). If you're interested in how PI's are measured in terms of productivity, a good place to start is Emory's presentation: http://med.emory.edu/faculty_dev/clinical/CRB Presentations/Measures of Success - Griendling.pdf

Ah nice, thanks for the link!

 

[ak-aka-dak]

If the only thing you did was something a Kinko's employee could have done, I'd say no. JMHO though.

I should have been clearer. Not "make" the poster as in getting it copied/blown up, but designed and wrote the poster for someone else that did the research. Should that be listed or just left off?

 

[Matthew9Thirtyfive]

I should have been clearer. Not "make" the poster as in getting it copied/blown up, but designed and wrote the poster for someone else that did the research. Should that be listed or just left off?

I would still leave it off. That's not really contributing to the research IMO. I could be wrong though.