| 24 May, 2010 | Richard P. Grant |
3
|
|
We know about posters, don’t we? The frenetic writing of an abstract before the deadline; the guesswork
|
|
Legacy comments are closed.
User comments must be in English, comprehensible and relevant to the post under discussion. We reserve the right to remove any comments that we consider to be inappropriate, offensive or otherwise in breach of the User Comment Terms and Conditions. Commenters must not use a comment for personal attacks.
Click here to post comment and indicate that you accept the Commenting Terms and Conditions.
previous post
I find the disclaimer at the very end of the summary (second example in the article) really funny:
“Please note that posters on this site may contain preliminary information that has not been peer-reviewed and should therefore not be taken as fact.” Like, if it would have witstand peer review, it would already be a “fact” hard and set in stone.
To the right of the box I am typing in, top on “Latest news from The Scientist” is: “10 retractions and counting”. So, that’s about 10 “facts” (or more) which suddenly are not ‘facts’ but ‘fabrications’.
[The remark is not a flame to the (anonymous) poster of this entry, but to the F1000 site, actually]
Heh, yes Alex–I’d noticed that too. I will point it out to the people responsible for the content 🙂
I hope that this new archive might find ways to showcase not only posters with good science, but those that are excellent examples of well done design. Such a showcase is badly needed to give poster makers ideas and inspiration about what works.