Abstract
This chapter looks at how we determine what makes a “good” poster, particularly from the perspective of formal assessment. It explores the limitations we face when trying to evaluate large amounts of posters and offers a range of solutions that can help the process. Poster rubrics are also considered, and the chapter links to Appendix 2 which offers clear and simple assessment templates for evaluating poster abstracts and posters in the conference setting.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Bailar JC, Patterson K (1985) Journal peer review: the need for a research agenda. N Engl J Med 312(10):654–657
Benos DJ, Bashari E, Chaves JM, Gaggar A, Kapoor N, LaFrance M, Qadri Y (2007) The ups and downs of peer review. Adv Physiol Educ 31(2):145–152
Billington HL (1997) Poster presentations and peer assessment: novel forms of evaluation and assessment. J Biol Educ 31(3):218–220
Bornmann L (2011) Scientific peer review. Annu Rev Inf Sci Technol 45(1):197–245
Bushy A (1990) A tool to systematically evaluate QA poster displays. J Nurs Qual Assur 4(4):82–85
Eisenschitz TS, Knox J, Oppenheim C, Richards K, Wittels P (1979) Poster sessions as a medium of scientific communication. J Res Commun Stud 1(3):235–242
Fisher JG (1998) How to run a successful conference: proven management techniques for delivering a successful event on budget. Kogan Page, London
Forsyth DM, Wright TL, Scherb CA, Gaspar PM (2010) Disseminating evidence-based practice projects: poster design and evaluation. Clin Sch Rev 3(1):14–21
Hess GR, Tosney KW, Liegel LH (2009) Creating effective poster presentations: AMEE Guide no. 40. Med Teach 31(4):319–321
ICCA [International Congress and Convention Association] (2014) The international association meetings market 2004–2013. Retrieved from: http://www.iccaworld.com/newsarchives/archivedetails.cfm?id=4255
NABT [National Association of Biology Teachers] (2015) NABT biology education poster competition rubric. Retrieved from: http://www.nabt.org/websites/institution/File/pdfs/Conference%20Forms/2015%20Conference/NABT%20Poster%20Guidelines%20and%20Rubric%202015.pdf
Newcastle University (2016) Judging criteria for poster presentation. Retrieved from: http://www.ncl.ac.uk/fms/postgrad/skills/documents/JudgingCriteriaforPosters.doc
Newbrey MG, Baltezore JM (2006) Poster presentations: conceptualizing, constructing & critiquing. Am Biol Teach 68(9):550–554
Orsmond P, Merry S, Reiling K (1996) The importance of marking criteria in the use of peer assessment. Assess Eval High Educ 21(3):239–250
Perfetti C (1985) Reading ability. Oxford University Press, New York
Persky AM (2016) Scientific posters: a plea from a conference attendee. Am J Pharm Educ 80(10) Article 162:1–3
PWC [PricewaterhouseCoopers] (2014) The economic significance of meetings to the US economy. Interim study update for 2012 (executive summary). Alexandria, Convention Industry Council. Retrieved from: http://www.ficpnet.com/sites/default/files/CIC%20Meetings%20ESS%20Update%20Executive%20Summary%20FINAL%20FINAL.pdf
ReadingSoft.com (2016) Typical reading results. Retrieved from: http://www.readingsoft.com/
Readwritethink.org (2016) Poster session rubric. Retrieved from: http://www.readwritethink.org/files/resources/lesson_images/lesson1076/rubric.pdf
Rothstein JM (1990) Caveat emptor and conference abstracts. Phys Ther 70(5):277–278
Rowe N, Ilic D (2011) Poster presentation–a visual medium for academic and scientific meetings. Paediatr Respir Rev 12(3):208–213
Rowe N, Ilic D (2015) Rethinking poster presentations at large-scale scientific meetings: is it time for the format to evolve? FEBS J 282(19):3661–3668
Rowe N (2017) Tracing the ‘grey literature’ of poster presentations: a mapping review. Health Inf Libr J [published online: 06.04.2017] doi: 10.1111/hir.12177
Smith PE, Fuller G, Dunstan F (2004) Scoring posters at scientific meetings: first impressions count. J R Soc Med 97(7):340–341
Smith R (2006) Peer review: a flawed process at the heart of science and journals. J R Soc Med 99(4):178–182
Sutton TM, Parrish DL, Jackson JR (2007) Time for a change: revision of the process for judging student presentations at the annual meeting. Fisheries 32(1):42–43
University of Texas (2016) Rubrics for poster competition. Retrieved from: https://institute.uteach.utexas.edu/sites/institute.uteach.utexas.edu/files/2016-poster-criteria-rubric.pdf
Walker S (2005) Poster poster on the wall: whose is the fairest assessment of all? J Fam Ther 27(3):285–288
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2017 Springer International Publishing AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Rowe, N. (2017). Evaluating Academic/Scientific Posters. In: Academic & Scientific Poster Presentation. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-61280-5_10
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-61280-5_10
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-61278-2
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-61280-5
eBook Packages: Biomedical and Life SciencesBiomedical and Life Sciences (R0)