Scoring Posters at Scientific Meetings: First Impressions Count
Open accessAbstract
Many specialist societies present ‘best poster’ prizes, yet without generally agreed assessment methods. 31 posters at a neurology meeting were divided randomly into two sets; 14 neurologists, randomized into two groups, were each assigned one poster set. They ‘quick scored’ the first half, viewing posters for 10-15 seconds, and ‘detailed scored’ the others. 11 administrators and pharmaceutical representatives quick scored all posters. Neurologists’ quick score ranking correlated highly ( r=0.75) with other neurologists’ detailed score ranking, and identified four of their six top-ranked posters. Correlations were strongest for presentation ( r=0.65), message ( r=0.65) and star-quality ( r=0.64), but weak for facts ( r=0.09), originality ( r=0.15) or science ( r=0.02). Non-neurologists could not identify the posters ranked highest by neurologists. We conclude that quick ranking by specialists can efficiently identify the best posters for more detailed assessment. On this basis we offer poster-scoring guidelines for use at scientific meetings.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Posters with a strong first impression are more likely to capture attention and facilitate further engagement.
“This reinforces our finding that posters with a strong first impression, such as those mindfully using the better poster or classic format, are more likely to capture attention and facilitate further engagement.”
From What Makes a Good Poster? Evaluating #BetterPoster and Classic Formats at a Scientific Cancer Conference (2026) · cites this paper as [7]
The Comment says an unattractive poster risked being overlooked on first impression and that specialists could use quick scores to select posters for more detailed assessment. This supports the idea that first impressions affect which posters receive further attention, but the paper did not measure audience engagement. The ‘better poster’ and classic formats are presented as the citing authors’ examples, not findings attributed to this source. (LLM, conf=0.82)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredOther researchers have emphasized the importance of first impressions at academic conferences.
“Other researchers have emphasized the importance of first impressions at academic conferences.”
From What Makes a Good Poster? Evaluating #BetterPoster and Classic Formats at a Scientific Cancer Conference (2026) · cites this paper as [7]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Bentsen, L., & Østergaard, D. E. (2026) · Journal of Cancer Education · doi:10.1007/s13187-025-02622-1 · Cited by 5 · see citing works
Oronje, B., Morrison, M., Suharlim, C., Folkman, K., Glaude-Hosh, A., & Jeisy-Scott, V. (2024) · doi:10.32388/p7n5bo.2 · Cited by 2 · see citing works
- Authors
- Smith, P. E. M., Fuller, G., & Dunstan, F.
- Affiliations
- Department of Neurology and Hospital of Wales College of Medicine, Cardiff, CF14 4XW
- University Hospital of Wales (GB)
- ORCID
- Dunstan, Frank
- Venue
- Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2004-07
- Volume
- 97
- Issue
- 7
- Pages
- 340-341
- ISSN
- 0141-0768 (ISSN-L)
- 1758-1095
- PMC
- PMC1079533
- OpenAlex
- W2046616773
- Cited by
- 25
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2025: 1 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 2 · 2020: 1 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 2 · 2015: 1 · 2014: 4 · 2013: 1 · 2012: 1
- FWCI
- 8.87
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Locations
- Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine (publishedVersion)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
- Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- ORCA Online Research @Cardiff (Cardiff University) (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › History and Philosophy of Science › Academic Writing and Publishing
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Information Systems and Management › Academic Publishing and Open Access
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Conferences and Exhibitions Management
- Keywords
- best poster award, scientific conferences, first impressions, neurologists, scoring guidelines, peer assessment, pharmaceutical sales representatives
- MeSH terms
- Attitude of Health Personnel, Audiovisual Aids, Congresses as Topic, England, Humans, Neurology, Guidelines as Topic, Biomedical Research
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
