No, the congress poster is not yet a publication, but it can become: 1. if the Proceedings of papers presented at the conference will be published, as well as 2. in some scientific journal independent of the conference.
Mirjana
No, the congress poster is not yet a publication, but it can become: 1. if the Proceedings of papers presented at the conference will be published, as well as 2. in some scientific journal independent of the conference.
Mirjana
Publication is that which is made public. If the poster is accessible to the public, the poster is published. Nothing more is required. It is that simple.
For example, this comment i am now writing will be published once i hit the Add button.
Martin Kivana, You are wrong. The published work is the one that has passed the review procedure, that is, evaluated by the competent reviewer, who should say whether the results are correct and whether they are new (they are not published somewhere) i. e. whether the work is genuine.
Anything posted online is usually considered published . However, citation may be impossible if the publication is not peer reviewed, maintained and kept in perpetuity.
It may be wise to check the submission instructions. Usually the host will share information on the form of publication and any requirements.
Yes, it is a publication (certainly from a legal perspective). However, there are publications and publications... there is a difference between a Nature publication and a blog about my cat (though both are publications). Posters may be really good, peer reviewed and at a prestigious conference (eg I've had some posters with a software demo at a good scholarly get together). Usually a more significant 'valuation' is given to a publication in a peer reviewed journal or proceedings. It depends, why the poster? what is the purpose to which you wish to nominate your poster for a publication -- promotion? peer performance assessment?
Yes , to the extent, if it's published in conference souvenir/ document as it's research work & presented in conference .
Yes, Alice Marino Anything posted online is usually considered published , but it is not scientific publicationn.
Scientific paper is a paper published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal. Concerning citations, of course, one paper is cited if it is published in such journal whose citation counts .
All the best,
Mirjana
Mirjana Vukovic , did scientific publishing begin with the establishing of the first peer-reviewed scientific journal?
I am obviously partial to the peer-reviewed journal but a duplication checker may check the internet at the right time/format and flag the poster as published.
In case you are interested in reading more about this see: http://www.ithenticate.com/content
A very unusual explanation. Do you know what scientific work is. ? The poster is not a scientific paper, but after reviewing and publishing it in a scientific journal or conference proceedings, it will become a scientific paper .
What a scientific paper should not be taught by those who have never published any scientific paper..
To Martin Klvana
Probably not, but we are now in 21st century and we are talking about what scientific work is tude
Mirjana Vukovic , consensus means neither "this is the right way" nor "this is the only way"; consensus is merely an agreement of a group of individuals about a certain thing; and there can be as many groups as there are individuals.
Martin Kivana,
Of course you are right, but I'm talking about what scientific work is.
There are many different types of works of exceptional value, that are not scientific work.
Mirjana Vukovic , what is and what is not scientific work is not determined by the process of sharing the work with the public but by the content of the work itself: any work that explores the causes of natural phenomena with the aim of understanding them is scientific.
Of course, but it is not dispute Martin Kivana.
I think that you don't knoew what scientific work is ? For a work to be a scientific work, something new must be given to it. Wheter or not there is something new is judged by competent researchers in the scientific field, so-called reviewers, not the public.
Mirjana
Mirjana Vukovic , my point is: from my point of view, peer review is an unnecessary step in the process of publishing scientific work, or any work for that matter, so my definition of a scientific publication does not include any mentioning of 'peer review'; from my point of view, peer review is destructive, not constructive, to science. i have never met a competent reviewer, and dealing with anonymous 'experts in the field' makes me want to vomit. So if the question is, 'Is a congress poster a publication?' i say, yes.
Your point is: "from my point of view, peer review is an unnecessary step in the process of publishing ", but it is not universally acknowledged. Even oral or poster presentations undergo serious admission at serious conferences. So, in order to present the work, it must be approved.
I'm sorry, but I think that most of the discussants don't know what the published paper means.
For congresses and conferences, authors do not submit their papers. With the application they send only the title and a short abstract of the lecture – of the paper So, before the congress, no papers published. After the conference, a collection of papers is usually published - after a positive review.
All the best,
Mirjana
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Linguistics
- Composition Studies
- Publication