1

Sort of a follow-up question to Does giving an easily-understood talk make the audience think you did something simple?

Let's say Alice goes to Big Name Conference V and gives a great talk. Everyone understood what she did, why she did it and what she's going to do next. Does that make it more probable that:

  • The organizers of Big Name Conference VI are more likely to invite her as a speaker;
  • If that doesn't happen, any submission she makes to Big Name Conference VI is more likely to be accepted?

If the answers to the above is "no", does that imply that if she submits to Big Name Conference VI and is rejected, then her talk at Big Name Conference V was probably poor?

3
  • I think this depends a lot on the culture of Alice's subsubfield in general, and in particular on whether the leaders of the subsubfield value good exposition in general or not. This may be true even if the conference is a broader conference. Jul 14 at 4:45
  • 3
    It's always good to be known for giving good presentations. One good talk is not always sufficient to become known for that.
    – Roland
    Jul 14 at 6:08
  • An easily understood talk on complex material shows you know how to explain complex material - nobody will mistake it for being 'simple'.
    – Jon Custer
    Jul 14 at 21:55
4

Does that make it more probable that:

The organizers of Big Name Conference VI are more likely to invite her as a speaker;

Yea, obviously a person who develops a reputation for giving great talks is more likely to be invites to give talks than a person who has not developed such a reputation.

However, one good talk will probably not increase the probability of getting to be an invited speaker by a huge amount. It will be a very slight increase. And Alice still needs to be well-respected as a researcher, not just a speaker, otherwise she almost certainly will not be invited to give a talk.

If that doesn't happen, any submission she makes to Big Name Conference VI is more likely to be accepted?

Not in the areas I’m familiar with. Typically acceptance of submitted papers/abstracts to conferences is based on the scientific quality of the submission and not on speaking ability. I’m guessing this is true universally across the STEM areas. Perhaps in humanities, social sciences and other non-STEM areas things are different in this respect.

1
  • 2
    In my end of the sciences, it's usual for the organisers to select some abstracts to be delivered as talks, and the others as posters. Prior knowledge about the presenter's abilities (or lack thereof) may be a factor in this decision - especially at large conferences with parallel sessions, where the audience may vote with their feet.
    – avid
    Jul 14 at 7:55

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.