avoiding truly offal poster presentations c. watkins, j.g. mexal and r. goss new mexico state...

Avoiding Truly Offal Poster Presentations

C. Watkins, J.G. Mexal and R. GossNew Mexico State University

Las Cruces, NM 88003

BRANDING

NMSU promise:

• to provide students with a quality education that prepares them for the world ahead

• http://brand.nmsu.edu/msppt.html

Avoiding Offal Posters

Background on Posters

• 1974: Debuted at Biochem/Biophysics Mtg• 2002: Posters – ASHS = 69% of 760 presentations

– ACSSS = 66% of 2195 presentations

– WSWS = 46% of 142 presentations

– WSSA = 36% of 333 presentations

• Posters: 34% = poor to fair,

36% = average,

30% = good to excellent

Avoiding Offal Posters

Outline

• Guidelines

• Background

• Layout

• Font Size

• Text

• Pictures

• Tables

• Graphs

Avoiding Offal Posters “Old School” Approach

Avoiding Offal Posters Guidelines for Posters• Go to File, Page Setup, Slides Sized For

(choose custom with landscape orientation, 44” width, 34”

• Go View, Guides (used to align text)

• Tables, figures, photographs or other objects can be inserted.

• Print on 8.5” x 11” to proof read

Avoiding Offal Posters Guidelines for Posters• Use a large font• Have lots of open space• Three columns is usually better than four; (two

columns might be better than three) • Use bullets (this is not a journal article)• Use graphs instead of tables• Use photos• Use a background other than white• K.I.S.S.

Avoiding Offal Posters Guidelines for PostersPlan

• What is the size? 1.2 m X 2.4 m (4’ x 8’) or 1.2 m X 1.2 m (4’ x 8’)

• Should be readable from 2 m (6’)

• “Murder your Darlin’s”

• 1-3 take-home messages– don’t present all your research in one

poster

Avoiding Offal Posters Backgrounds- “Old School” • This is as boring in posters as it is in slides.

• Be lazy- use PowerPoint

• Be creative- use your imagination

Avoiding Offal Posters Backgrounds-• Textures

• Photographs– higher resolution (pixillation)

• Clip Art– relevant

Avoiding Offal Posters BackgroundsPhotograph Watermark Grayscale

R B Y B R B Y B R B Y B

R B Y B R B Y BR B Y B

Avoiding Offal Posters Backgrounds

Clip Art Watermark Grayscale

R B Y B R B Y B R B Y B

Avoiding Offal Posters Backgrounds-Combinations

• Layout– Organize in modified IMR&D format

– Layout in left-to-right and top-to-bottom

– Exceptions: • Upper right = POWER = Conclusions

• Lower corners = WEAK = M&M, tables,

junk

Avoiding Offal Posters Guidelines for Posters

Title Author and Affiliation

Abstract Introduction

HypothesisObjectives

M&M

Photo/ Results ConclusionsConclusions

Results

M&M/ Table/ Results

Implications

TablePhotos

No. 127,993a




M&M


Results

M&M/ Table/ Results

Implications

TablePhotos

Power Corner

No. 127,993a

Power Corner

Weak Corner

Weakest CornerDon’t put anything

important here other than your buttocks

Avoiding Offal Posters Font Size

•96 pt = 23 mm•72 pt = 17 mm• 48 pt = 9 mm• 28 pt = 8 mm • 24 pt = 6 mm • 20 pt = 5 mm

• Headings– 12-15 mm font

– Do not switch sizes (Results, Materials and Methods)

• Text– KISS: Brevity is a virtue

– Use “Landscape” format, as the commercial says: “Wider is better.”

– Right ragged margins

– Outline format—use bullets

– >6 mm font


Title --96 pt = 23 mmAuthor and Affiliation--72 pt = 17 mm



M&M


Results

M&M/ Table/ Results

Implications

TablePhotos

No. 127,993a

Subheadings -- >9 mm

Headings -- >12 mm

Text -- > 5 mm




M&M


Results

M&M/ Table/ Results

Implications

TablePhotos

No. 127,993a

Omit ‘Abstract’ if allowed

Make this easy to find!Use border or highlight

Logo

• Good quality logo– color– appropriate size

• Poster number– often required

No. 127,993a

• Title– Active title– Avoid “effect”, “affect”, “influence”, “impact”,– Tell the results of your research– Use large font ~25 mm– Use Bold– Do not use ALL CAPS

• Authors & Affiliation– use smaller font than title ~15-20 mm– use logo (in color)


• Title– short, and catchy (this is the ‘hook’)– > 25 mm– easily read– avoid dead words, e.g. effect, influence, study

• Authors– > 15 mm– Underline presenter, if not senior author

• Affiliation– department, city, e-mail address– construct pocket for business cards


• Bad titles:– “Effect of magnesium on early taro growth.”

Comm. Soil Sci. Plant Anal. 25:2159:1994

– “Vacuum cooling and storage temperature influence the quality of

stored mung bean sprouts.” HortScience 35:891:2000

• Good titles:– “Sugars prevent the detrimental effects of gamma irradiation on cut

chrysanthemums.” HortScience 31:117:1996

– “Narrow row spacing does not affect lima bean yield or management of weeds and other pests.”

HortScience 36(5):884:2001


• Abstract– Omit unless required; repeats ‘Conclusion’

– If required, substitute ‘Implications’ for ‘Conclusion’

– Abstract on poster need not be identical to submitted abstract

• Introduction– Brief

– Bullets better than text

– Include ‘Hypothesis’ and ‘Objectives’ with their own headings or subheadings



• Hypothesis: Faculty, even Professors, can learn to present research findings in a clear, legible, and attractive format that enlightens the reader.

• Objectives: – Present ‘tricks of the trade’– Suggest universal layout– Conduct cost/benefit analysis


• Only the ‘Introduction’ and ‘References’ are less important

• Be brief• Use photographs (> 5” x 7”)• N.B. You are already considered the expert--

that’s why they stopped at your poster. There is no need to elaborate extensively on the methods; unless this is a methods poster.

Materials& Methods

• Photos– Use them– Prefer: 20 cm x 25 cm– Acceptable: 10 cm x 18 cm– Should be pertinent– Photos need a legend





M&M


Results

M&M/ Table/ Results

Implications

TablePhotos

Hot ideas callfor hot photos!

No. 127,993a

• USDA Choice (no fat allowed)!• “Just the facts, ma’am. Nothing but the

facts.” Joe Friday

• Use bullets

• > 1.5 spaces between lines

• Place most important findings in the upper 1/2 of the poster

Results

• Tables– Brief legend at top

– No more than 20 items

– No more than 4 columns

– No more than 5 rows

– Use >6 mm font

– Use significant numbers

– Use statistics

– Number tables (if needed)


Table 1. Eslduroie wrhfnv worh;lf wruwuawiu wer rsdote awuflnf weefipf0fs.

Blings (Mg/ha)Treatment Horgne(m)

Borch(mg/kg)

Keing(%)

Xeros(gpm)

1998 1999 2000 Mean

1 17.083 14 a 77 402 4.5 3.8 7.2 5.2 b

2 15.256 2 a 76 480 3.8 2.9 8.1 4.9 c

3 6.664 11 a 81 358 1.5 3.3 5.9 3.6 d

4 21.001 4 a 79 289 9.8 7.6 12.1 9.2 a

5 18.222 7 a 80 430 3.6 4.6 6.7 5.0 b

Mean 16.555 8 78 392 4.9 4.4 8.0 7.6



Borch(mg/kg)

Keing(%)

Xeros(gpm)

1998 1999 2000 Mean

1 17.083 14 a 77 402 4.5 3.8 7.2 5.2 b

2 15.256 2 a 76 480 3.8 2.9 8.1 4.9 c

3 6.664 11 a 81 358 1.5 3.3 5.9 3.6 d

4 21.001 4 a 79 289 9.8 7.6 12.1 9.2 a

5 18.222 7 a 80 430 3.6 4.6 6.7 5.0 b

Mean 16.555 8 78 392 4.9 4.4 8.0 7.6

What’s important here?



Borch(mg/kg)

Keing(%)

Xeros(gpm)

1998 1999 2000 Mean

1 17.083 14 a 77 402 4.5 3.8 7.2 5.2 b

2 15.256 2 a 76 480 3.8 2.9 8.1 4.9 c

3 6.664 11 a 81 358 1.5 3.3 5.9 3.6 d

4 21.001 4 a 79 289 9.8 7.6 12.1 9.2 a

5 18.222 7 a 80 430 3.6 4.6 6.7 5.0 b

Mean 16.555 8 78 392 4.9 4.4 8.0 7.6


• Horgne = 16.555 m

• Borch = 8 mg/ha

• Keing = 78%

• Xeros = 392 gpm

Blings (Mg/ha)

1998 1999 2000

4.9 4.4 8.0

• Graphs– Legend above figure

– Use >6 mm font

– Do not copy from thesis or manuscript

– Number figures

– Do not include numerical value with figure

– Use color

– Bar graphs: • No “pseudoperspective”

(3D) [Bill Gates likes this]

• No more than 3 groups of bars

• Label Y axis on horizontal

– Line graphs• No more than 5 lines

• Remove 1 line for every cross-over




Borch(mg/kg)

Keing(%)

Xeros(gpm)

1998 1999 2000 Mean

1 17.083 14 a 77 402 4.5 3.8 7.2 5.2 b

2 15.256 2 a 76 480 3.8 2.9 8.1 4.9 c

3 6.664 11 a 81 358 1.5 3.3 5.9 3.6 d

4 21.001 4 a 79 289 9.8 7.6 12.1 9.2 a

5 18.222 7 a 80 430 3.6 4.6 6.7 5.0 b

Mean 16.555 8 78 392 4.9 4.4 8.0 7.6

Eslduroie wrhfnv worh;lf wruwuawiu wer rsdote awuflnf weefipf0fs.

Treatment

Voldt (Mg/ha)

d

a

bb c

Eslduroie wrhfnv worh;lf wruwuawiu wer rsdote awuflnf weefipf0fs.

Treatment

Voldt (Mg/ha)

d

a

bbc

• Effective poster organization and presentation can improve comprehension of new information presented at scientific meetings.

• Meetings can be more enjoyable for everyone.

Implications

• Cost of a good poster:– person-years to collect data X annual salary– cost of meeting (airfare, per diem, registration)– poster ($50 for color @ Kinko’s)

• Benefit:– A good poster will attract readers, potential

collaborators, funding agencies, or future employers

Cost/Benefit Analysis

• Tools– Push-pins

– Velcro

– Knife

– Liquid paper

Do not check poster as luggage: Carry with you everywhere!

– Black pen

– Clear shipping tape

– Business cards

– Shipping tube

Avoiding Offal Posters Traveling with Posters




M&M

Photo/ Results

ConclusionsConclusions

Results

M&M/ Table/ Results

Implications

TablePhotos

Photo/ Results

No. 127,993a

Be creative!!

avoiding truly offal poster presentations c. watkins, j.g. mexal and r. goss new mexico state...

Documents