Mark, While I appreciate your discussion of ripe vs unripe idea, both are qualitative value judgements, unless they have gone through formal peer review processes.
The reality is that MOST presentations at scientific meetings are in fact works in progress or works whose ink has not yet dried. That, really, is the point of the modern scientific meeting. That and the opportunity to interact and discuss these unripe ideas on their way to ripeness. I offer, therefore, that either format, oral or poster is appropriate for anyone to present in. ripe or unripe. To suggest that poster sessions are really appropriate to unripe ideas, while oral presentations should be reserved for ripe ideas whatever these are, is to fall prey to that old notion that poster sessions are not as meritorious as oral presentations. That is an honest misconception. I used to be of the same thinking until I realized I was wrong for the following reasons: Oral presentation: You have the floor for 10 20 min, depending on the format, including questions. You are competing against concurrent presentations as a general rule. Once you are finished, you are finished. And lost in the crowd. Poster sessions: Your posted is exposed longer and to more readers. Poster sessions generally are not competing in concurrent sessions, so everyone gets to read as many posters as they want. You tend to attract folks who would otherwise have to choose from concurrent sessions, but also wanted to view your work. You have more time to interact with more people, make more contacts, and have more fruitful discussions. Bottom line, once one takes a very good look at the two formats, one cannot but logically conclude that posters are a BETTER and more productive way to present ones work. Ripe or unripe. Oral presentations are a tradition. Not better. Just some musings of a poster convert. Cary D. Chevalier, Ph.D. Department of Biology Missouri Western State University 4525 Downs Dr. St. Joseph, MO 64507 Ph: 816.271.4252 Fax: 816.271.4252 Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Latitude 39o 45' 29.94559" N - Longitude 94o 47' 6.49119" W _____________________________________________ From: "Dixon, Mark" [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, March 02, 2007 5:21 PM To: <[email protected]> Subject: Re: Presenting at scientific meetings Perhaps posters are the best medium to present works in progress, while talks would be best reserved for more "ripe" results. Mark D. Dixon Assistant Professor Department of Biology University of South Dakota Vermillion, SD 57069 Phone: (605) 677-6567 Fax: (605) 677-6557 Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -----Original Message----- From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Heather G. Davis Sent: Friday, March 02, 2007 12:02 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: Presenting at scientific meetings In regards to students presenting at meetings, I think a student does her/himself a disservice to present "unripe" work at large meetings. If you wish to make a name for yourself, it is important to consider the nature of the reputation you are courting. In large meetings with many concurrent sessions, many people do not wish to attend session after session dominated by untested ideas and methods discussions as they have traveled far, also wish to acquire useful information and must choose among sessions. A student without solid results would better spend their time talking with presenters after the sessions. These presenters are much more likely to remember you favorably from your insightful questions than if they feel you have wasted their time. It is also possible to contact people in your field in advance to see if they might be willing to sit down with you to privately discuss your work. That said, there are many meetings that specifically cater to the work of students. People who attend these meetings expect to see works in progress and are usually helpful in providing feedback. I do not mean to discourage students with "ripe" work from presenting - doing so is incredibly valuable both to the student and to the rest of the scientific community. > I'd like to hear your opinions on the following. > > My previous advisor (Master's degree) believed that scientific meetings > are > for presenting work in progress, asking for critiques, looking for > collaborators, and networking. Therefore, he encouraged students to > submit > work that was not necessarily ready for journal submission, but ready for > discussion. The more meetings, the better. > > So, I've presented my thesis work and some subsequent professional work > at > several meetings. > > I'm now in a PhD program, with some interesting results from year 1 > research. Adviser says not to present, that my work isn't quite "ripe" > yet, > that I'm at least a year away from being able to present. I figure that > it > is my job to present, that I'm doing myself a huge disservice by not > presenting, both in terms of getting my name out there, as well as > getting > some honest feedback from my peers. > > Shouldn't the abstract review process catch work that isn't "ripe" for > presentation (ie results will be discussed vs preliminary data show that > ___ > and that __ should be incorporated to refine the model)? > > How often/when do ecologgers present at scientific meetings? Shouldn't I > aim for at least 1 meeting/yr? > This address soon to expire - change to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Heather G. Davis, Ph.D. [EMAIL PROTECTED]
