Submitting to more than one conference

[Lactic Folly]

Since this forum is such a good source of info, I thought I'd pick the brains of those more involved in research than I.

My supervisor says that one can submit a project to more than one international conference - in which circumstances is this true?

I assume this is ok if there has been significant progress in the work, but certainly concurrent submission to more than one journal is a no-no.

Abstract submission guidelines for many conferences are rather vague - I have found info on the web that seems to support multiple submissions, but these are for arts/social sciences, and I'd be looking at more science/medicine. Thanks!

[osteon]

Originally Posted by Lactic Folly

Since this forum is such a good source of info, I thought I'd pick the brains of those more involved in research than I.

My supervisor says that one can submit a project to more than one international conference - in which circumstances is this true?

I assume this is ok if there has been significant progress in the work, but certainly concurrent submission to more than one journal is a no-no.

Abstract submission guidelines for many conferences are rather vague - I have found info on the web that seems to support multiple submissions, but these are for arts/social sciences, and I'd be looking at more science/medicine. Thanks!

Double dipping is frowned upon regardless of whether it's a journal or conference. Actually, for a journal it's not even legal if you sign over ownership to the journal. Presumably, since you are going to more than one conference, so are many other academics. Now why would they want to go to a new conference to see the same old research? Thats not the point of an academic community. I know of a few novice researchers who do not think (know?) much of double submissions, but among those purely involved in research (medicine/science PhD's) it is generally not looked upon favorably. The exception is student conferences, where it's not so much about academic advancement as it is about student experience. I've known a few profs who have commented that they can easily tell on applications that someone has reused old research for multiple conferences. Titles are similar, authors are similar, and it doesn't take much to look up the content of each online. Like you said though, if there's significant progress (like new interpretations significant) in the project, then it might be ok. Usually, one will present their research in its early stage at a conference, and then add more in depth analysis and interpretation to put out a paper.

[quackster]

Originally Posted by Lactic Folly

Since this forum is such a good source of info, I thought I'd pick the brains of those more involved in research than I.

My supervisor says that one can submit a project to more than one international conference - in which circumstances is this true?

I assume this is ok if there has been significant progress in the work, but certainly concurrent submission to more than one journal is a no-no.

Abstract submission guidelines for many conferences are rather vague - I have found info on the web that seems to support multiple submissions, but these are for arts/social sciences, and I'd be looking at more science/medicine. Thanks!

Most conferences don't allow you to have submitted your work to another conference, nor that the journal article for the research be published before the conference presentation. I wouldn't risk it, lest it get caught and you have to retract your abstract.

There are some exceptions that I know of, but these are clearly stated.

[Lactic Folly]

Thanks guys.

[brooksbane]

I love research. I really do.

It's the purest of expressions of science and discovery,where the greatest minds in the world come together to share their results with others so that the collective braintrust of humanity expands for our benefit.

There are no ego trips, and conferences would rather treat the knowledge as free for all rather than as belonging to one particular conference as if the conference owns it and it is merely an attraction, no more impacting than a Justin Bieber concert.

(I hate research)

[medhopefuls2016]

I gave a talk...actually the only undergrad invited in a professional setting... at an international hematology conference in the States during my second year. Also first author published that work a year later. So from my experience,

If you are giving a formal talk, then I would really stick to the safe side and submit to only 1 conference. For papers however, you must only submit to them one at a time.

Good luck!

[osteon]

Originally Posted by medhopefuls2016

I gave a talk...actually the only undergrad invited in a professional setting... at an international hematology conference in the States during my second year. Also first author published that work a year later. So from my experience,

The experience you describe here does not align with the conclusions you give next at all. You presented, and then published, which is typical.

If you are only presenting a poster, no one would really care how many you submit to. Two reasons: 1) There are usually couple hundred posters at these conferences. 2) These works generally are of smaller scope/impact anyways.

Wrong. At big conferences, like the international one you went to, because there are so many people, even strong research is given a poster just so everyone can be accomodated. Often nowadays, where more than 5000 attendees is typical at a big medical conference, only keynotes get oral presentations. I've seen many posters go on to be published in BMJ and Nature, so your statement that only smaller scope things get a poster is totally false. Yes there are many posters, but researchers will almost always look at the program ahead of time to make sure they can go see the ones that are of most interest to them, which is usually easy because posters are organized by discipline. So, yeah people do recognize if you're presenting the same thing twice...

However, if you are giving a formal talk, then I would really stick to the safe side and submit to only 1 conference. For papers however, you must only submit to them one at a time.

Good luck!

My response in bold.

[quackster]

++ to osteon above.

medhopefuls2016, you gave some frighteningly false information...especially so when there is currently heightened scrutiny for legitimacy of data.

just to add, for the sake of information - once an abstract is accepted, the content is officially embargoed until the time of presentation, poster or oral.

[medhopefuls2016]

Originally Posted by quackster

++ to osteon above.

medhopefuls2016, you gave some frighteningly false information...especially so when there is currently heightened scrutiny for legitimacy of data.

just to add, for the sake of information - once an abstract is accepted, the content is officially embargoed until the time of presentation, poster or oral.

Ummm interesting...I didn't know that the rules for posters at formal conferences are also that stringent. I was always under the impression that posters are a lot more informal. For OP, talks/papers however concurrent submission is definitely NOT allowed as I said before.

Osteon:

It is for sure not true that only keynotes give oral free communications. Besides the general keynotes, my conference was divided into multiple topics spanning the course of three-day weekend, for each research focus there were 5-6 presenters who were chosen for oral communications. Further, people who get chosen tend to have projects which, in my opinion (which maybe wrong as Osteon point out) have broader scope or more interdisciplinary in nature (or, as my supervisor said, tells a "complete story" ).

[osteon]

Originally Posted by medhopefuls2016

Ummm interesting...I didn't know that the rules for posters at formal conferences are also that stringent. I was always under the impression that posters are a lot more informal. For OP, talks/papers however concurrent submission is definitely NOT allowed as I said before.

Osteon:

It is for sure not true that only keynotes give oral free communications. Besides the general keynotes, my conference was divided into multiple topics spanning the course of three-day weekend, for each research focus there were 5-6 presenters who were chosen for oral communications. Further, people who get chosen tend to have projects which, in my opinion (which maybe wrong as Osteon point out) have broader scope or more interdisciplinary in nature (or, as my supervisor said, tells a "complete story" ).

Notice that I did not say "exclusively." I said "often." For conferences that do have oral presentations, it is not necessarily better or more "interdisciplinary" or "complete" projects that get the oral. I know because I've served on abstract review boards, and have heard the same thing from profs who have also served on review boards. Here's an example:

Let's say an orthopedic conference receives 10 abstracts and they plan to have 1 oral session of 6 people. Let's say 6 of the abstracts are on osteoarthritis, one is on acl surgery, one is on meniscus repair, one is on rotationplasty, and one discovers a compound that speeds fracture healing by 75%. Guess who gets the podium talks: the 6 on osteoarthritis. The other 4 could be way better studies, RCT's maybe that go on to NEJM or Nature but would end up with a poster because there aren't enough abstracts on those topics. In general, they try to organize conferences to meet the demands of those attending - in Ortho, OA is a big problem, and thus there's a lot of OA research, thus if your project is on OA, chances are you'll get a podium if the conference offers them. Find a hot research area and you might get a podium, regardless of whether the study is Nature-worthy or rejection-worthy from any bottom ranked journal.

Now, those 6 who have podium talks; of course their talks will seem like more "complete" or interdisciplinary studies. That's because they have 12 minutes of your time to tell you whatever they want. A poster presenter usually gets like 2 minutes. So to say that all oral presentations are better, or more interdisciplinary or more complete or whatever is just misinformed.