Collaboration Workshop

Collaboration Workshop
Thoughts for Young Scientists on How Best to Collaborate
Philip E. Bourne
pbourne@ucsd.edu
http://www.sdsc.edu/pb/
Much of the material presented here is draw from the PLoS Ten
Simple Rules Collection Available Here
11/19/10 Collaboration Workshop

Intended Goal
• Take away some pointers for how you can enrich your
scientific career through interaction with others. That
interaction is in turn dependent upon such issues as:
– Doing the best science
– Knowing how to collaborate
– Communicating that science:
• Writing good papers
• Giving good talks
• Making and presenting effective posters
• Making the most of informal interactions
– Being involved (societies, user groups, data depositor,
curator etc.)
• We will spend time on each of these

Intended Audience
• Graduate students
• Postdoctoral fellows
• Research scientists
• Early stage faculty
• Well anyone willing to listen really

How Did I Arrive at My Perspective?
• BS, BS (Hon.), PhD in chemistry at same provincial
Australian university
• 2 good postdocs in Europe and the US doing
structural biology
• Left academia (sort of) for the IT world for 12 years
• 15 years in academia – Research Scientist, Adjunct
Prof., Prof.
• Immersed myself in an emerging discipline
(bioinformatics/comp biol)
• Pursue many diverse research interests (good or
bad?)

A Pot-pourri of What I Have Learnt Over the
Years (the Bottom Line for You)
• Do cutting edge science (ie pick the right
problems)
• Do it with the best people
• Let your heart guide you not your head
• If you are not excited every day by what you
are doing you are doing the wrong thing
• Never be intimidated
• Plan to have impact

How Did This Workshop Come About?
• About 5 years ago the student council of the
International Society for Computational Biology
(ISCB) asked me to give them a lecture on how to
get published based on my new role of EIC of
PLoS Comp. Biol.
• The exchange that took place was one of the
most fun lectures I have ever given
• In trying to capture that moment I wrote an
Editorial “Ten Simple Rules for Getting Published”
…

How Did This Workshop Come About?
• It was downloaded a large number of times
• Folks started to approach me with other ideas for Ten
Simple Rules
• To date there is a “Ten Rules” series downloadable from
http://collections.plos.org/ploscompbiol/tensimplerules.
php
• This became a graduate student course at UCSD and is
accompanied by on-line versions of some of the lectures
• I now get asked to give these workshops in various
forums eg annual conferences

Okay Enough Background ..
Lets Get Started ..
To State the Obvious More Scientists
are Going to Want to Collaborate
with You if You are Doing Interesting
Work

Doing Your Best Research – A Philosophical
Perspective Adapted from Richard Hamming and
Stated as Ten Simple Rules
• Richard Hamming 1915 –
1998
• Mathematician
• Know to many of us for
the Hamming
Distance
• Winner of the Turing
Award
from
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Hamming
•

Warning
• This part of the workshop is like being on the
couch
• Subsequent parts provide more tangible
advice

Basic Question for Today as Asked by Hamming in his
1986 Lecture ‘‘You and Your Research’’
How can you do Nobel Prize winning
Research?

Rule 1 – Be Honest with Yourself
• If you are sitting here sincerely not wanting to
win a Nobel Prize then you are probably
wasting your time
• If you do not want to win a Nobel Prize (or
have some equivalent driver) you will not
succeed
• It is no good just wanting to be a me too you
must want to make a difference

Rule 2 – Prepare Your Mind
• Winning a Nobel Prize is not a matter of luck
• You not winning the Nobel Prize is not the
fault of others
• Face up to your shortcomings and work out
how to overcome them either by your own
efforts or in collaboration with the efforts of
others

Rule 3 – Age is Important
• You are smarter when you are younger but
less experienced
• The foundation for your success will likely
come from your work at an early stage – 20’s
to mid 30’s – There are exceptions e.g., the
field of study may not have existed when you
were that old
• Experience will help you successfully build on
that body of work

Rule 4 - Brains Are Not Enough,
You Also Need Courage
• This could perhaps be interpreted as ego
• You need to strongly voice an opinion you
believe in, even when everyone is against you
• The irony is that research is about innovation,
yet at the same time the scientific community
is very conservative
• You need to keep pushing those ideas orally
and in print

Rule 5 - Make the Best of Your
Working Conditions
• ‘‘It is a poor workman who blames his tools—
the good man gets on with the job, given what
he’s got, and gets the best answer he can.’’
• The workplace is not about a fancy foyer it is
about a place that fosters discourse and
stimulates you e.g., MRC Cambridge
• If the working conditions are not good find
new ones soon or contribute to making them
better

Rule 6 - Work Hard and Effectively
• ‘‘Knowledge and productivity are like compound
interest. Given two people with exactly the same
ability, the one person who manages day in and day
out to get in one more hour of thinking will be
tremendously more productive over a lifetime.’’
• “Hard work alone is not enough—it must be applied
sensibly.”
• The person that spends the most hours in the lab. is
often not the best
• Time management skills are critical
• To work hard like this requires real passion that comes
from the heart not the head

Rule 7 - Believe and Doubt Your
Hypothesis at the Same Time
• ‘‘When you find apparent flaws, you’ve got to be
sensitive and keep track of those things, and keep
an eye out for how they can be explained or how
the theory can be changed to fit them. Those are
often the great scientific contributions”
• You must see the big picture – it is oh so easy not
too
• If your hypothesis is proven wrong know when to
move on

Rule 8 - Work on the Important
Problems in Your Field
• “If you want to do great work, you clearly must work on important problems. .
. . I finally adopted what I called ‘Great Thoughts Time.’ When I went to lunch
Friday noon, I would only discuss great thoughts after that. By great thoughts I
mean ones like: ‘What will be the impact of computers on science and how
can I change it?’’’
• Talk is cheap - So what are my current great thoughts?
– Improve science dissemination and comprehension through openness and
rich content
– Really understand using computational and systems biology what happens
when we take a drug
– Change the way evolution is studied so that we can:
• Further prove we are a product of our environment
• Understand the evolution of proteins through their structures
• I dare you to go back and ask your PI what are her/his current great thoughts
Collaboration Workshop11/19/10

Rule 9 - Be Committed to Your
Problem
• Success comes from the heart not the head
• ‘‘So the way to manage yourself is that when you
have a real important problem you don’t let anything
else get the center of your attention—you keep your
thoughts on the problem. Keep your subconscious
starved so it has to work on your problem, so you
can sleep peacefully and get the answer in the
morning, free.’’

Rule 10 - Leave Your Door Open
• ‘‘There is a pretty good correlation between
those who work with the doors open and
those who ultimately do important things,
although people who work with doors closed
often work harder. Somehow they seem to
work on slightly the wrong thing—not much,
but enough that they miss fame”
• The door is a metaphor – be open to every
idea and person in your field – you cant do it
alone

Discussion/Questions?

Okay so now lets assume you are
working on the most interesting
problems in a stimulating
environment. Collaborations will likely
come your way.
How should you respond?
• .

Intended Goal
• Giving good talks,
• Making and presenting effective posters,
curator etc.)

Establishing a Successful
Collaboration
PLoS Comp. Biol. 3(3): e44
11/19/10

My Bias
• I don’t like projects where I feel like I am a cog
in a wheel
• Do not think I am particularly good at
collaboration
• When I have a collaboration it is usually a long
one
11/19/10

My Publication Web
http://pubnet.gersteinlab.org/11/19/10

Experiences
• Ilya Shindyalov (Research - grants) – 29 papers
• Helen Berman (PDB - contract) – 11 papers
• Jeff Lakey (Reviews) – 14 reviews
• Lei Xie (Research – grants) 13 papers
• Worked with someone seriously effected by a
bad collaboration
Collaborations come in different forms and require
different rules
11/19/10

Over Arching Thoughts …
• From 1981 to 2001 the average number of authors
on a paper rose from 3.9 to 8.4
• Funding (e.g., NIH Roadmap is making us be
collaborative; Janelia Farm)
• Nothing in Professional Development makes sense,
except in the light of evolution - collaboration
provided an evolutionary advantage
• Collaboration can be fun or a drag
• Some collaborators become life long friends
• Some collaborations never get off the ground
2911/19/10

• Your success as a scientist depends very much on
what other scientists think of your work and of you
personally so…
• They must know you personally – that often comes
through collaboration
• They must know you to have integrity
3011/19/10

Over Arching Thoughts
• “The scale and complexity of today's biomedical
research problems demand that scientists move
beyond the confines of their individual disciplines
and explore new organizational models for team
science. Advances in molecular imaging, for example,
require collaborations among diverse groups—
radiologists, cell biologists, physicists, and computer
programmers.” —National Institutes of Health
Roadmap Initiative
• Sean Eddy – The individual is the interdisciplinary
team PLoS Comp Biol 1(1) e6
3111/19/10

Rule 1 – Pick Collaborations Carefully
• Do not be lured by money
• Do not be lured by a famous co-investigator
• Be lured by a shared passion in the science
• Consider all aspects of the collaboration – will
it make a difference to my long term goals? Do
I have the experience? Do I like the team? Can
I deliver on time?
11/19/10

Rule 2 – Decide Early
• Early delegation of responsibilities is priceless
• For a grant revisit the specific aims regularly
• Consider an MOU
• Discuss expectations for authorship early
• Do not blind sight them with related publications –
tell collaborators in the formative stages
• Be comfortable early not uncomfortable late
11/19/10

Rule 3 – Stick to Your Tasks
• Do not digress from the agreed upon
questions to be addressed without prior
discussion with your collaborators
• Do not just think your collaborators will be
pleased with your change of emphasis
11/19/10

Rule 4 – Be Open and Honest
• Share all data, protocols, materials etc.
• Holding things to your chest may be a short
term advantage but it is a long term
disadvantage – it relates to integrity
• Be available but have your collaborator
understand your availability
11/19/10

Rule 5 – Mutual Respect is a Must
• If you do not respect the scientific work of a
potential collaborator – do not collaborate
• Respect can change as a collaboration
progresses – look for signs of change
• Examples of mutual respect:
– Advanced notice when you cant make a deadline
– Open dialog about your limitations for a given task
– Discussing being approached by others to
collaborate on related issues
11/19/10

Rule 6 – Communicate, Communicate,
Communicate
• Face-to-face is best, followed by video,
followed by telephone, followed by email –
email is asynchronous and brings out unseen
personality traits
• Shared project documents are good e.g.
Google docs
• Use scientific meetings for face-to-face – you
can justify the cost and get other benefits
11/19/10

Rule 7 – Protect Yourself from a
Collaboration That Turns Sour
• Projects often do not work out as planned –
both you and your collaborators should have a
mutually agreed upon Plan B before it is
needed
• Be sympathetic to life changes that impact a
collaboration
• If things do not work out think carefully how
the impact on your career can be minimized
11/19/10

Rule 8 – Always Acknowledge and Cite Your
Collaborators
• This applies to preliminary results
• This applies even when you are not happy
with the collaboration IF the collaborator has
contributed anything at all
• Make it clear who is responsible for what
11/19/10

Rule 9 – Seek Advice from Experienced
Scientists
• Collaborations always present challenges
• Use mentors to help resolve challenges – they
have likely been there done that
• Challenges can on occasion lead to major
breakthroughs – do not give up too easily
11/19/10

Rule 10 – Keep Good Collaborations Going
• Why did Shindyalov and Bourne publish so
many papers together?
• Why did it end?
11/19/10

Lets Analyze Photograph 51 As
One Highly Visible Collaboration

11/19/10 Collaboration Workshop 43

Collaborations Often Start Through
Science You Have Already
Communicated.
It Follows the Better You
Communication Your Science the
More Collaborations You Can Foster

Writing the Best Scientific Paper
11/19/10

Overarching Thoughts …
• Your publications are the most important metric by
which you are judged as a scientist
• That metric is increasingly easy to measure
– H factor (ISI Web of Science)
– Number of citations (ISI, Google Scholar)
– Journal downloads
• Your papers will be around long after you are gone –
they are your scientific legacy
• Think about that immutability as you write
• Numbers (regrettably) are important
4711/19/10

Overarching Thoughts
Quality is
Everything
11/19/10

Personal Experiences
• Have one of the most cited papers in the biological
sciences (~10,000) – hardly anyone has ever read it
• Have papers that are highly read (as judged by
downloads) but never cited
• The work I am proudest of is not the most cited
• As an Editor you see a lot of papers – both good and
bad
• Even the best scientists write bad papers - they just
know how to work the system better
4911/19/10

Emerging Metrics - Gerwick

Emerging Metrics - Bourne

Acknowledgement
• The following is a rework of the Ten Rules for
Getting Published PLoS Comput Biol 1(5): e57
(there is a rule here - you can always improve
your work)
• Notes from Bill Gerwick “Writing a Research
Publication – 21 Suggestions” which he has
prepared for students
11/19/10

Rule 1 – To Write You Have to Read
• Read at least 2 papers per day in detail
• Review papers through journal clubs and take
note of the reviews of others
• Put aside papers you and others think are of high
quality to refer to as you write even if they are
not related to the topic
• Look at papers which have open review – learn to
write better papers from those reviews
• Take lessons from
http://www.nature.com/nature/dna50/archive.ht
ml
11/19/10

Rule 2 – Learn to be Objective About Your
Work
• The best scientists are the most objective
• It is easy not to be objective when you have buried
yourself in it for months on end – see your work in a
broader context – how will it impact science as a
whole
• It is easier for your mentor to be objective (it is only
one of a number of projects going on in the lab) but
still..
• Have independent colleagues who can be objective
review your first draft
11/19/10

Rule 3 – Pick the Right Journal
• In order of Priority:
1. Do you read that journal?
2. The quality of the journal as defined by impact factor,
Editorial Board and quality of reviews
3. Be realistic about where the work can be published – it
will save time and frustration
4. The journal with the readership that is closest to your
work
5. Go open access (personal comment)
• Use the pre-submission system to be sure it is the
right journal
11/19/10

Rule 4 – Learn to Write Well
• This is critical to being a good scientist – it is not
just about grammar, but comprehension
• Take classes to improve your writing skills
• This is valuable whatever your career path as you
will need to present complex ideas clearly,
logically and to a broad audience whatever in
whatever you do
• This will lead to less rejection and less rounds of
editing
• Copyediting is on the decline – your mistakes will
be left in the literature
11/19/10

Rule 5 – Learn to Live with Rejection
• Being objective makes rejection easier
• Even the best scientists get rejected
frequently
• Failure to do so has adversely impacted very
good scientists
• If all of the reviewers think you have written a
poor paper – 9 times out of 10 you have –
move on
11/19/10

Rule 6 – Learn to Use the Review Process
to Your Advantage
• Good reviews will improve the paper significantly
• Respond to all the points made by the reviewers
• Do so in a polite and non-antagonistic way –
particularly when the reviewer has not understood
your point – consider it your fault not theirs
• Respond in a way that is easy for the reviewer to
comprehend:
– Address every point head on in the response letter to the
editor
– Make it easy for the reviewer to see where you made
changes e.g. with tracking
11/19/10

Rule 7 – You Know the Rules for Good
Science – Do Not Ignore Them
• Novelty
• Comprehensive coverage of the literature to
establish your motivation and hypothesis
• Good data and appropriate analysis
• A though provoking discussion
11/19/10

Rule 8 – Even if You Obey Rule 7 the
Message Can be Lost If..
• The paper is poorly organized – think logical flow not
a blow-by-blow – think scholarship
• There is not the appropriate use of figures and tables
• The manuscript is not of the right length
• You are not writing to the intended audience
• You do not obey (to the letter) the Guide to Authors
– particularly important for the methods section
• The title does not convey the message
• You overstate your case with words like “novel”,
“new” and a host of other adjectives
11/19/10

Rule 9 – Start Writing the Paper on Day 1
(Arguable)
• Make a good bibliographic database to draw from as you go
• Decide on the journal in which you will publish early
• This implies the end result is a paper and not a new
finding/knowledge – get real!
• Draw up an outline
• Structure the paper around the major results as found in
figures and tables
• Starting early makes it easier to finish – being the best at
doing research is not enough – the world needs to know
about it
• As a PhD student this also implies you are writing your thesis
as you do the work
11/19/10

Rule 10 – Become a Reviewer Early in Your
Career
• Have your mentors give you the papers they
are reviewing – write a review and discuss
with your mentor to improve your reviewing
• Look at the reviews others have written
• Understand the review process – EIC, AEs,
reviewers
• This will allow you to see your work in a new
light
11/19/10

Collaboration Workshop 63
11/19/10

Intended Goal
• Giving good talks
• Making and presenting effective posters,
curator etc.)

Giving Good Oral Presentations
http://www.scivee.tv/pubcast/17500596
6511/19/10

My Bias
• Given lots of talks – both good and bad – 31
plenary and keynotes in the past 3 years
• Talked to between 5 – 5000 people
• Talked on television
• Talked on many subjects both science and IT
• Talked to many different audiences – 3rd
graders (most scary), investors, Nobel
Laureates
11/19/10

Experiences
• Sydney Brenner
• Dorothy Hodgkin
• David Searls
• Francis Crick
11/19/10

• The science you are talking about is more important
than the talk
• Being a good speaker is a key element of being a good
scientist
• The best speakers are often the best scientists
• Talk for yourself as well as others – talk to get feedback
on your work and use it
• If you are passionate about what you do your talks will
be more compelling and enjoyable
6811/19/10

• Work within the bounds of your personality
• If you get no questions you screwed up
• Even after what I am about to tell you sometimes I
feel I give bad talks and I do not know why
• Conversely sometimes I worry about giving a talk and
it turns out much better than I expected
• You should be able to give the same talk without
visual aids
11/19/10

How Do I know I Gave a Good Talk?
• You get invited back to talk
• You get invited to talk by someone in the
audience
• Audience members follow up with you days or
weeks later
• People are not asleep or reading email
11/19/10

Rule 1 – Tell the Audience What They Want
to Hear
• Talk at a level of detail that matches the
expertise of the audience
• Do not talk up e.g. by saying “this is not my
expertise but..” if it is not your expertise they
do not want to hear it
• Do not talk down in a condescending tone
• Figure out who your audience will be before
you prepare one slide
11/19/10

Rule 2 – Less is More
• Do not try and say too much – your message
will be lost
• Be clear and concise – use visuals to help with
this
• Your knowledge will come across – do not try
and tell the audience everything you know
• No more than one slide per minute max.
• Too many slides and you tend to talk to quickly
– the message will be lost
11/19/10

Rule 3 – Only Talk When You Have
Something to Say
• Your time is precious – the audiences time is
yours x the number of people in the audience
– Do not waste it with preliminary material
11/19/10

Rule 4 – Make the Take Home Message
Persistent
• Test – Ask audience members a week later
what they remember from your talk .. If
– They remember more that 3 points … no one will
– They remember 3 points you regard as key – well
done
– If they remember 1-3 points but they were not key
somehow your emphasis was wrong
– They say “what talk” .. Figure that out for yourself
11/19/10

Rule 5 – Tell a Story
• People (that includes scientists) love a story
• Include a human element i.e. make it different
to a paper
• Stories have beginnings that set the stage
reveal the characters etc.
• Stories have middles (the experiment and its
results perhaps)
• Stories have a big ending, often a surprise one
11/19/10

Rule 6 – Treat the Floor as a Stage
• Entertain the audience – think ahead of time
what will keep their attention and make them
enjoy listening
• Do not use techniques that are not in your
personality. If you are not humorous by nature
don’t try and start in front of an audience
ditto telling anecdotes
11/19/10

Rule 7 – Practice and Time Your
Presentation
• Practice will avoid going off on tangents – this
can be dangerous – message is lost, don’t get
to the big finish, talk about stuff that you
know little about…
• Practice with colleagues before the big
audience – they will think kinder thoughts if
you screw up
• Practice speaking through journal club, group
meetings etc.
11/19/10

Rule 8 - Slides
• Do not read the slide unless you wish to emphasize a
point
• Slides are a backup for what you are saying
• Look at them on the big screen before the audience
does
• Focus on content not glitz
• Avoid information overload
• Use animations sparingly and effectively
• Use navigation tricks
11/19/10

Rule 9 – Video or at Least Audio Your
Practice Presentations and Review
(Declared Conflict)
• This is a very telling way of seeing bad habits
e.g., umming and ahhring, scratching your
head (or worse) ….
• Work hard to correct those habits
11/19/10

Rule 10 – Provide Appropriate
Acknowledgements
• This is important – Do not run out of time and
so not do it
• Acknowledge as you go
• Use pictures
• Acknowledge people you anticipate will be in
the audience who have contributed
• Include important references
11/19/10

Additional Thoughts on Slides…
• A picture really is worth a lot of words
• Spend time on preparing persistent (e.g.
introductory slides you will use over) slides – it
is a rewarding experience and a skill worth
developing
• As much as possible a slide should have an
understandable message on its own – Its
might end up in Google images after all
11/19/10

Additional Thoughts on Slides
• Reuse slides to emphasize a point
• Provide a roadmap
– Navigation on the bottom of the screen
– Returning to the agenda indicating the point you
are going to discuss next
– Use recap slides
– On the Web
11/19/10

11/19/10

Preparing and Presenting Posters
http://www.sicb.org/newsletters/fa97nl/sicb/poster.html
8511/19/10

My Bias
• Have not personally made a poster for a long
time
• Encourage lab members to make posters and
review their content – they need at least a
poster to go to a conference
• Encourage lab members to make “postercasts”
• Post them on the walls after too
11/19/10

Experiences
• Given posters that have not generated a great
deal of interest
• Done “Statement posters” as well as research
posters
• Done “booth duty” with Sun Microsystems
11/19/10

• Posters are a key element of scientific communication and
dissemination
• Big names can be seen giving posters
• They are different than other forms of communication and
require special consideration
• Snapshot of your current research
• For a graduate student they are a major facet of your ability to
interact
• “Postercasts” make posters persistent (not always desirable)
8811/19/10

• Should be a standalone experience if you are
not there
• If you are there engage people not intimidate
them
• Life long collaborations can start in front of a
poster
• Poster prizes count on your resume
11/19/10

Rule 1 – Define the Purpose
• Report latest unpublished work (most
frequent)
• Report a summary of a body of work
• Specifically find collaborators
• Spend the appropriate time depending on the
longevity of the poster
• Figure it being on an institutional wall after
the meeting
11/19/10

Rule 2 – Sell Your Work in 10 Seconds
• You will likely be one of hundreds of posters –
you need to fight for attention
• Catch the attention of the person ambling by
both with the written word and your elevator
pitch
• Consider casting your work in the form of
addressing an important question which is
prominent on your poster
11/19/10

Rule 3 – The Title is Important
• It may be the only thing the attendee sees
before visiting the poster session
• A title is your equivalent of a newspaper
headline – short sharp and compelling
• Unlike a newspaper headline it should not
oversell your work
• Make it understandable to a broad audience
11/19/10

Rule 4 – Poster Acceptance Means Nothing
• Poster acceptance usually says nothing about
the scientific content – conferences need
attendees – attendees can often only go if
they are presenting – speaking slots are
limited - enter posters
• Follow up from a poster means everything –
do good science and present it well
11/19/10

Rule 5 – Note Similarities to Giving Good
Talks and Writing Good Papers
• Know your audience – provide the appropriate
scope (breadth) and depth
• Follow the proven formula for research
– State the hypothesis to be tested and why
– Show the major result
– What does that say about your hypothesis
– Conclude with what is next
11/19/10

Rule 6 – Note the Differences to Research
Papers
• Message needs to be distilled but logical flow
maintained
• Posters (at least for now) allow you to be
more speculative – they are not immutable
• Use the poster as an attractant for other
materials – supplementary information,
reprints etc.
11/19/10

Rule 7 – Layout and Format are Important (more
on this when we review posters)
• Remember the phrase “eye catching”
• There is no need to cover every inch – guide the eye
to the most relevant points
• Unlike a research article a poster is not a sequential
medium – guide the viewer through the logical
sequence with numbers arrows, colored boxes etc.
• Look at other posters to get ideas not on content but
layout
• Never use less than a 24-point font
• Make sure the main points are at eye-level
11/19/10

Rule 8 – Content Must Be Concise
• Every aspect of the poster must convey the
main message
• Be clear concise and brief
• Use pictorials as much as possible
• Highlight the main points of those pictorials –
e.g. bold emphasis, color coding in tables and
figures
• The abstract should say more than a paper
abstract – it may go into an abstract book
11/19/10

Rule 9 – Posters Should Reflect Your
Personality
• Unlike a paper a poster does not have to be
dry and impersonal
• Include a photo so you can be spotted even
when you are not at the poster
• Have the photo of you doing a hobby etc. – it
starts the conversation also collaborations
start often for non-scientific reasons
• A viewer will likely remember more about you
that your poster
11/19/10

Rule 10 – The Impact of a Poster Happens
Both During and After the Poster Session …
• Work the crowd by being engaging, but not
too engaging – one engaged viewer will attract
others
• Work all the audience at once – maintain eye
contact with everyone
• Make it easy for attendees to contact you
after
• For mature posters – have the poster on-line
and accessible via a URL
11/19/10

Rule 10 – The Impact of a Poster Happens
Both During and After the Poster Session
• Leave the attendee space and time
• Have a sign-up sheet attached to your poster
11/19/10

Additional Thoughts
• What is right and wrong with the following
posters?
11/19/10

Closing Thoughts on What NOT to Do..
• Just assume yours is the best poster
• Ignore the instructions on poster size etc.
• Assume content is all that is important
• How you mount the poster does not matter
• Do not use dark backgrounds
• Do not stimulate the reader’s senses with
many random colors
11/19/10

Closing Thoughts on What NOT to Do
• Require the reader stand for ½ hr 1cm from
your poster
• Have long titles in small font
• Have the authors names and institution be the
dominant visual
• Invite collaboration through physical proximity
• Require rigorous physical exercise to follow
the logic of the poster
11/19/10

11/19/10

Being Involved?
General Discussion

Collaboration Workshop

Recomendados

Recomendados

Mais conteúdo relacionado

Mais procurados

Mais procurados (20)

Destaque

Destaque (12)

Semelhante a Collaboration Workshop

Semelhante a Collaboration Workshop (20)

Mais de Philip Bourne

Mais de Philip Bourne (20)

Último

Último (20)

Collaboration Workshop