I’m an academic on faculty in the US. I have some biochemistry background, and I do a lot of posters and talks but not chem or biochem specifically. So, my comments are about general graphic presentation and about general scientific thought process.
- Most important (nobody else is mentioning): WHERE are you presenting? What kind of conference? That drives most of the feedback. (Reference style too)
- What do your coauthors say for feedback??
- most confusing was “MIC” in upper left of table. I had to figure out on my own that 1..30 were your compounds and columns are bacterial strains etc. Also I know what it stands for but do you define it?
- are compound numbers arbitrary? If so, renumber them! Or make a scheme to call them by shorthand notation. Make grouping meaningful.
- I’m not too bothered by the amount of information like others pointed out. It’s’more about the arrangement. (But see next comment. )
- I skimmed the structures very quickly. Barely looked. Some audience might care, some not. If you keep them all, maybe highlight the relevant chlorinated core motif (or the R groups for contrast). I like what people said about consider turning the figure into a small figure (core molecule) plus table (which just lists R groups)
- For the big table, is there a better way to sort its rows? Maybe ascending by some MIC column or combination of columns.
- Why separate the Staph aureus columns? Looks like the order of columns is almost random. You can even cluster them more like Gram positive vs Gram negative.
- in theory you could combine table of R groups with table of effects (MICs)
- Big picture: It would be nice for the audience to search for some kind of PATTERN in what compounds have a low MIC. What are the common R groups that seem to help? The way the figure and table interact could show this in a really effective way but currently doesn’t. See next point.
- Almost certainly should move that stuff under “SAR studies” to conclusions!! This seems to be the entire point of your poster. The substituents with benzene-looking thingies worked. The ones that look like adamantane, isobutane etc did not. Unless I really misunderstood and these results come from prior work.
- what do % numbers mean in the figure with all the structures? If it’s there, it’s not easy enough to find.
Since yo haven’t mentioned how big the poster will be I don’t know but if it’s gonna be the regular size, I think there’s too much information it and everything’s gonna get lost. You can’t put everything on the poster. I think you should choose just the best results and out them on the poster. It’s just too much like that. If I would want to look at it; at halfway I would say, f*ck I’m bored ‘cause there’s too much information at one small place. I think you should choose the best results and put them on - especially at he library of the compounds and biological activity.
I would cut the characterization (its obvious cpds were characterized)
I would cut the text im synthesis
I would simplify the structures (show the core and r1/r2…, use maybe some colours)
Also i think you ment aniline instead of analine ?
Way too much data. It's appropriate to say "library of 30 compounds synthesized" and only show the best 5 or 10.
Try to use R groups or colored balls to shorthand your structures (ie, 1. R1 = H, R2 = Cl. 2. R1 = Cl, R2 = Cl)
Text under synthesis isn't necessary
Probably don't need "fig" under the NMRs
Hard disagree. It's about this study, not a review of the topic. In this case "these compounds might be good antibiotics" is actually enough information for the audience to know why they are doing this.
But it took me a moment to figure out where to start reading the poster from. Highlighting the section ("make it prominent") would help the reader. Also, having borders between sections would be great too. I wasn't talking about the content, but the formatting and presentation.
Make all structures the same exact size. If possible, put the data from the “biological study” table into a graph that can be analyzed by a viewer in <5 seconds…nobody is going to sit there and try to interpret the results of a table themselves.
Other people here are saying to cut the characterization. For an undergrad poster, I disagree. It’s obvious to most people on this sub that NMR would be used to characterize these compounds, but it’s probably not obvious to a lot attendees of an undergrad poster session. Not to mention the spectra you chose are beautiful.
Jesus christ. That is a LOT. Pister should be readable, Andrew the viewers should understand in 40 seconds. If he then wants, he can read or ask for details.
You want to tell a story and convey ideas and broader results. Having endless tables of values and substances doesn't do that. I know, a lot of work goes into that and you will have the urge to show all the work you did, but it won't be interesting to the audience.
Try to trim down the text; avoid words that aren’t “necessary” for a poster. For example, just say, “Pyrazole compounds formed via reaction between 4-hydrazinyl…”
Try to keep it concise!
A nice graphic of what you are trying to achieve goes a long way. After all, you will keep people with data and more information, but you won‘t catch them.
[удалено]
I’m an academic on faculty in the US. I have some biochemistry background, and I do a lot of posters and talks but not chem or biochem specifically. So, my comments are about general graphic presentation and about general scientific thought process. - Most important (nobody else is mentioning): WHERE are you presenting? What kind of conference? That drives most of the feedback. (Reference style too) - What do your coauthors say for feedback?? - most confusing was “MIC” in upper left of table. I had to figure out on my own that 1..30 were your compounds and columns are bacterial strains etc. Also I know what it stands for but do you define it? - are compound numbers arbitrary? If so, renumber them! Or make a scheme to call them by shorthand notation. Make grouping meaningful. - I’m not too bothered by the amount of information like others pointed out. It’s’more about the arrangement. (But see next comment. ) - I skimmed the structures very quickly. Barely looked. Some audience might care, some not. If you keep them all, maybe highlight the relevant chlorinated core motif (or the R groups for contrast). I like what people said about consider turning the figure into a small figure (core molecule) plus table (which just lists R groups) - For the big table, is there a better way to sort its rows? Maybe ascending by some MIC column or combination of columns. - Why separate the Staph aureus columns? Looks like the order of columns is almost random. You can even cluster them more like Gram positive vs Gram negative. - in theory you could combine table of R groups with table of effects (MICs) - Big picture: It would be nice for the audience to search for some kind of PATTERN in what compounds have a low MIC. What are the common R groups that seem to help? The way the figure and table interact could show this in a really effective way but currently doesn’t. See next point. - Almost certainly should move that stuff under “SAR studies” to conclusions!! This seems to be the entire point of your poster. The substituents with benzene-looking thingies worked. The ones that look like adamantane, isobutane etc did not. Unless I really misunderstood and these results come from prior work. - what do % numbers mean in the figure with all the structures? If it’s there, it’s not easy enough to find.
Since yo haven’t mentioned how big the poster will be I don’t know but if it’s gonna be the regular size, I think there’s too much information it and everything’s gonna get lost. You can’t put everything on the poster. I think you should choose just the best results and out them on the poster. It’s just too much like that. If I would want to look at it; at halfway I would say, f*ck I’m bored ‘cause there’s too much information at one small place. I think you should choose the best results and put them on - especially at he library of the compounds and biological activity.
I would cut the characterization (its obvious cpds were characterized) I would cut the text im synthesis I would simplify the structures (show the core and r1/r2…, use maybe some colours) Also i think you ment aniline instead of analine ?
Way too much data. It's appropriate to say "library of 30 compounds synthesized" and only show the best 5 or 10. Try to use R groups or colored balls to shorthand your structures (ie, 1. R1 = H, R2 = Cl. 2. R1 = Cl, R2 = Cl) Text under synthesis isn't necessary Probably don't need "fig" under the NMRs
Looking to get some feedback on my poster. This is my second poster presentation and am looking for some feedback. FYI I'm a undergrad.
[удалено]
Try out [citethis](https://citethis.net/) instead
Make your introduction and background section more prominent.
Hard disagree. It's about this study, not a review of the topic. In this case "these compounds might be good antibiotics" is actually enough information for the audience to know why they are doing this.
But it took me a moment to figure out where to start reading the poster from. Highlighting the section ("make it prominent") would help the reader. Also, having borders between sections would be great too. I wasn't talking about the content, but the formatting and presentation.
AH I thought more context, rather than highlighting it. For me this was no problem to find because it's top left where you usually start to read.
Make all structures the same exact size. If possible, put the data from the “biological study” table into a graph that can be analyzed by a viewer in <5 seconds…nobody is going to sit there and try to interpret the results of a table themselves. Other people here are saying to cut the characterization. For an undergrad poster, I disagree. It’s obvious to most people on this sub that NMR would be used to characterize these compounds, but it’s probably not obvious to a lot attendees of an undergrad poster session. Not to mention the spectra you chose are beautiful.
Yields in ur synth
Jesus christ. That is a LOT. Pister should be readable, Andrew the viewers should understand in 40 seconds. If he then wants, he can read or ask for details.
You want to tell a story and convey ideas and broader results. Having endless tables of values and substances doesn't do that. I know, a lot of work goes into that and you will have the urge to show all the work you did, but it won't be interesting to the audience.
Try to trim down the text; avoid words that aren’t “necessary” for a poster. For example, just say, “Pyrazole compounds formed via reaction between 4-hydrazinyl…”
Try to keep it concise! A nice graphic of what you are trying to achieve goes a long way. After all, you will keep people with data and more information, but you won‘t catch them.
I like this format a lot but maybe cut down that table into a more concise formate
1) Put some horozontal space between your bullet points 2) Add some colour! 3) Remove some information. Seems too much