0

What is the usual way to indicate on the poster that the poster is just a summary of an already published article?

I plan to give the reference as part of the poster title at the top, such as:

Interestic topic
J. of important Results, 2017, p1-23
Author, affiliation

Background (and why I have no idea): I am mathematician and will attend a physics conference. I have been encouraged by a member of the committee to present a poster about one of my results (actually my only result in physics so far, which was published in 2017 in the journal "Foundations of Physics"). I have no experience with posters (never presented one nor attended a poster session ever) nor with physics conferences. It seems that in many fields, posters are considered to be some form of publication? In any case, I would like to avoid misunderstandings or the impression of self-plagiarizing or whatever.

3

I am not aware of any standard way to do this, coming from a physics background and having presented several posters. I would either include the paper in the references, or have a statement directly under the title along the lines of 'Results presented here published as [publication details]', as you suggested.

  • 3
    I see this all the time in biology; it's rare to submit a poster of already published work, but often work is published between the time a poster abstract is submitted and the actual conference, which can be 6 months or more. Your latter suggestion is always what I've seen: an explicit reference to the published work separate from the references, in some obvious place though not necessarily immediately under the title. Presenters want to draw attention to it so that attendees can follow up with the actual article, the poster is sort of an advertisement. – Bryan Krause Jul 17 at 14:54

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.