research poster evaluation form

Creating a Poster

• Getting Started
• Design Tips
• PowerPoint Set-Up & Templates
• USD Info: Logo, Tips, Printing

Evaluation Checklist

Evaluation tools & summaries, class exercises-1, class exercises-2, class handout.

• Presenting Your Poster
• Additional Reading & Research

Poster Evaluation Checklist

o  Title and other required sections are present

o  Complete author affiliation & contact information is included

o  The poster conforms to the requirements of the conference or program where it will be presented

o  Font is consistent throughout

o  Spelling is correct throughout

o  Grammar is correct throughout

o  Acronyms are defined on first use

o  Content is appropriate & relevant for audience

o  All text can be easily read from 4 feet away

o  Flow of the poster is easy to follow

o  White space used well

o  Section titles are used consistently

o  Images/graphics are used in place of text whenever possible

o  Bullet points/lists are used in place of text whenever possible

o  All images are relevant and necessary to the poster

o  Charts are correct – i.e. appropriate type for data, data is correct & correctly represented

o  Text color and background color are significant in contrast for easy reading

o  Background color doesn’t obscure or dim text

o  Images are clear, not pixilated or blurry

o  The “story” of the poster is clear

o  The content is focused on 2-3 key points

o  Title is clear & informative of the project

o  Problem, or clinical question, is identified and explained

o  Current evidence related to project is listed

o  Objectives are stated

o  Methods are described

o  Results are presented

o  Conclusions are stated

o  Implications to practice and to other professions are presented

o  References are listed

o  All content is relevant and on the key points

o  Content is not duplicated in text and graphics

Oral Presentation

o  Presenter greets people

o  Presenter is able to give a concise synopsis of poster

o  Presenter is able to explain all diagrams and sections

o  Presenter speaks fluently – i.e. doesn’t stumble, leave sentences/thoughts hanging

o  Presenter has questions to ask viewers

The following links are to surveys & rubrics with questions you can use to critique & improve your poster

• 60-second Poster Evaluation  (by G. Hess) Provides 9 categories with a ranking from 0-2
• Poster Evaluation Rubric (adapted from Hess) Chart format of Hess' evaluation
• Research Poster Evaluation Rubric (by CSEE) Includes evaluation of poster content, not just graphics & design
• Creating effective scholarly posters: A guide for DNP students . (USD only) Discusses poster presentations as an excellent venue for students to successfully share the results of their scholarly projects; includes an evaluation rubric. Christenbery, T. (2013). Creating effective scholarly posters: A guide for DNP students. Journal of the American Academy of Nurse Practitioners., 25(1), 16-23.

As an exercise, apply the criteria in the poster evaluation checksheet on the back of your handout to the examples on this page. Complete an evaluation for your assigned poster. 

The following examples illustrate issues with  content ,  design and layout , and  graphics .

• Can Suburban Greenways Provide High Quality Bird Habitat? https://www.ncsu.edu/project/posters/examples/BirdsInGreenways/BirdsInGreenways.jpg  
• Will Manatees Still Exist in 2100? https://www.ncsu.edu/project/posters/examples/Manatees/Manatees.jpg  
• Gene Flow in Lions https://www.ncsu.edu/project/posters/examples/GeneFlowInLions/GeneFlowInLions.jpg

As an exercise, apply the criteria in the poster evaluation checksheet on the back of your handout to the examples on this page. Complete an evaluation for each example, then compare your evaluation with ours. 

The following examples illustrate issues with  content ,  design and layout ,  graphics , and an  overall example .  Each includes a version needing improvement, and a revised version of the same poster. 

1. Content Example

http://lgimages.s3.amazonaws.com/data/imagemanager/25128/contextexample-first.jpg

2. Design and Layout Example

http://lgimages.s3.amazonaws.com/data/imagemanager/25128/designlayoutex-first.jpg

3. Graphics Example

http://lgimages.s3.amazonaws.com/data/imagemanager/25128/graphicsexample-firstversion.jpg

4. Overall Design Example

http://lgimages.s3.amazonaws.com/data/imagemanager/25128/overallexample-first.jpg

• Handout 10.27.2014
• << Previous: USD Info: Logo, Tips, Printing
• Next: Presenting Your Poster >>
• Last Updated: Nov 6, 2023 10:01 AM
• URL: https://libguides.usd.edu/poster

• Site Search
• MU Libraries Gateway
• Ellis Library
• Engineering Library
• Veterinary Medical Library
• More Libraries & Collections
• Distance Education Students
• Medical Students
• Nursing Students and Nurses
• Patients & Everyday Health
• Borrow & Checkout
• Electronic and Print Reserves
• Expert Search Service
• Interlibrary Loan and Document Delivery
• Photocopying
• Request a Library Purchase
• Room Reservations
• Citation Styles and Tools
• Evidence Based Medicine
• Find Articles
• Mobile Medical Resources
• Research by Subject
• Workshops & Videos
• Giving Opportunities
• Maps/Directions
• Staff Directory

PowerPoint for Posters: Evaluating Your Poster

• Design Tips
• MU Logos & Colors
• Evaluating Your Poster
• Additional Reading & Research
• Infographics

Evaluation Checklist

Poster Evaluation Checklist

  Basics

o  Title and other required sections are present

o  Complete author affiliation & contact information is included

o  The poster conforms to the requirements of the conference where it will be presented

o  Font is sans-serif

o  Font is consistent throughout

o  Spelling is correct throughout

o  Grammar is correct throughout

o  Acronyms are defined on first use

o  Content is appropriate & relevant for audience

o  All text can be easily read from 4 feet away

o  Flow of the poster is easy to follow

o  White space used well

o  Section titles are used consistently

o  Images/graphics are used in place of text whenever possible

o  Bullet points/lists are used in place of text whenever possible

o  All images are relevant and necessary to the poster

o  Charts are correct – i.e. appropriate type for data, data is correct & correctly represented

o  Text color and background color are significant in contrast for easy reading

o  Background color doesn’t obscure or dim text

o  Images are clear, not pixilated or blurry

  Content

o  The “story” of the poster is clear

o  The content is focused on 2-3 key points

o  Title is clear & informative of the project

o  Problem, or clinical question, is identified and explained

o  Current evidence related to project is listed

o  Objectives are stated

o  Methods are described

o  Results are presented

o  Conclusions are stated

o  Implications to practice and to other professions are presented

o  References are listed

o  All content is relevant and on the key points

o  Content is not duplicated in text and graphics

  Oral Presentation

o  Presenter greets people

o  Presenter is able to give a concise synopsis of poster

o  Presenter is able to explain all diagrams and sections

o  Presenter speaks fluently – i.e. doesn’t stumble, leave sentences/thoughts hanging

o  Presenter has questions to ask viewers

For a printable version of the checklist see MS Word version in the next column

Evaluation Tools & Summaries

The following links are to surveys & rubrics with questions you can use to critique & improve your poster

• 60-second Poster Evaluation (by G. Hess) Provides 9 categories with a ranking from 0-2
• Poster Evaluation Rubric (adapted from Hess) Chart format of Hess' evaluation
• Research Poster Evaluation Rubric (by CSEE) Includes evaluation of poster content, not just graphics & design
• Disseminating Evidence-Based Practice Projects: Poster Design & Evaluation Focuses on nursing EBP projects; Includes an evaluation rubric for EBP posters Article by: Forsyth, Wright, Scherb & Gaspar. Clinical Scholars Review 3(1):14-28, 2010

Checklist - Printable format

• Poster Evaluation Checklist MS Word version
• << Previous: MU Logos & Colors
• Next: Additional Reading & Research >>
• Last Updated: Nov 17, 2022 5:23 PM
• URL: https://libraryguides.missouri.edu/powerpoint_posters

USF St. Petersburg Nelson Poynter Library will be closed on Monday, Dec 12, 2022 for the USF Libraries In-Service Day event. Operations will resume on Tuesday, Dec 13, 2022

Due to severe weather, the USF St. Petersburg Library will remain closed on Thursday, August 31st and reopen on Friday, September 1st.. For information concerning the libraries on the Tampa and Sarasota-Manatee campuses and the Shimberg Health Sciences Library , please visit their webpages. Students and faculty can visit www.usf.edu/news For official USF News regarding the weather and other closures.

There will be a preventative maintenance done on our ILLiad software on February 24, 2023 between the hours of 9pm and 1am . Patrons may not be able to make requests during this time. Thank you for your patience.

• Nelson Poynter Memorial Library
• USF St. Petersburg Library
• General Guides

Research Posters: Toolkit

• Templates and Designing Your Poster
• Writing Abstracts

Template Options

Best practices, additional considerations.

• Data Visualization
• Design Choices
• Before you Print
• Virtual Presentations
• In-Person Presentations
• Publishing Your Poster
• Citing Sources This link opens in a new window
• Workshop: Creating Research Poster Presentations

Selecting a Layout

Once you have gathered the content of your project, you can decide how to organize the content on your poster. Choose the structure that best showcases the significant findings of your research. 

In many academic disciplines, particularly the sciences, research projects are often organized according to the  IMRAD format:

• Introduction/Background
• Results AND
• Discussion/Conclusion

If your research uses a historical or an experimental approach, consider alternate layouts such as  timelines, Q&As, or any other narrative format  that correlates well with your research.

Each of these templates are highly customizable.  Please feel free to make adjustments to the color schemes and fonts and to add photographs, icons, illustrations, charts, and other design elements. We strongly encourage you to make your poster stand out!

The 4-column poster template is widely used for research posters and works well for the IMRAD format. Information is read from top to bottom, left to right. 

The 3-column template is also suited for the IMRAD format, but may also be used for timelines, etc. Information on this template is read from top to bottom, left to right. This template is nearly identical to the Four Column Poster Template, but accommodates larger images and figures.

The Alternative Poster Template has a minimalist design, so consult with your instructor before opting to use this template. Information on this template is read a little differently; audience members will first be drawn to the large heading in the center, then read the information in the left column, and then look at the images and figures in the right column. Because this template is a minimalist design, you may want to use a QR code to link to a web site with additional details that don't fit on the poster itself.

Research posters are designed to provide the significant highlights of a research project in a visual, eye-catching way. Here are some best practices to guide you:

• Catchy title
• Clear statement of purpose
• Readable design: Horizontal layouts usually include 3-5 columns with balanced combination of text and graphics
• Be brief: 500 – 1,000 words, comprised of short paragraphs and bulleted lists
• Figures/Tables should have a clear purpose and be clearly labelled
• Major findings/results should be the focus
• Bibliography should be selective, usually 3 – 5 citations

Most people naturally read Four-Column posters from left to right, top to bottom. If your poster layout deviates from this, you will need to make the organization clear to your audience through the use of arrows or other icons to show how the audience should read the information. 

The layout of any poster can be improved with the intentional use of images, figures, icons, headings, and any other means of breaking up the text of your research poster. That being said, approximately  40% of your poster should be "blank space"  that is free of text, figures, and images. 

• << Previous: Writing Abstracts
• Next: Data Visualization >>
• Last Updated: Jan 26, 2024 3:17 PM
• URL: https://lib.stpetersburg.usf.edu/posterpresentations

Welcome to Microsoft Forms!

• Create and share online surveys, quizzes, polls, and forms.
• Collect feedback, measure satisfaction, test knowledge, and more.
• Easily design your forms with various question types, themes, and branching logic.
• Analyze your results with built-in charts and reports, or export them to Excel for further analysis.
• Integrate Microsoft Forms with other Microsoft 365 apps, such as Teams, SharePoint, and OneDrive, so you can collaborate with others and access your forms from anywhere.

Explore templates

• Template gallery
• Community volunteer registration form
• Employee satisfaction survey
• Competitive analysis study
• Office facility request form
• Vacation and sick leave form
• Post-event feedback survey
• Holiday Party Invitation

Defining the Role of Authors and Contributors

Page Contents

• Why Authorship Matters
• Who Is an Author?
• Non-Author Contributors
• Artificial Intelligence (AI)-Assisted Technology

1. Why Authorship Matters

Authorship confers credit and has important academic, social, and financial implications. Authorship also implies responsibility and accountability for published work. The following recommendations are intended to ensure that contributors who have made substantive intellectual contributions to a paper are given credit as authors, but also that contributors credited as authors understand their role in taking responsibility and being accountable for what is published.

Editors should be aware of the practice of excluding local researchers from low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs) from authorship when data are from LMICs. Inclusion of local authors adds to fairness, context, and implications of the research. Lack of inclusion of local investigators as authors should prompt questioning and may lead to rejection.

Because authorship does not communicate what contributions qualified an individual to be an author, some journals now request and publish information about the contributions of each person named as having participated in a submitted study, at least for original research. Editors are strongly encouraged to develop and implement a contributorship policy. Such policies remove much of the ambiguity surrounding contributions, but leave unresolved the question of the quantity and quality of contribution that qualify an individual for authorship. The ICMJE has thus developed criteria for authorship that can be used by all journals, including those that distinguish authors from other contributors.

2. Who Is an Author?

The ICMJE recommends that authorship be based on the following 4 criteria:

• Substantial contributions to the conception or design of the work; or the acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data for the work; AND
• Drafting the work or reviewing it critically for important intellectual content; AND
• Final approval of the version to be published; AND
• Agreement to be accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved.

In addition to being accountable for the parts of the work done, an author should be able to identify which co-authors are responsible for specific other parts of the work. In addition, authors should have confidence in the integrity of the contributions of their co-authors.

All those designated as authors should meet all four criteria for authorship, and all who meet the four criteria should be identified as authors. Those who do not meet all four criteria should be acknowledged—see Section II.A.3 below. These authorship criteria are intended to reserve the status of authorship for those who deserve credit and can take responsibility for the work. The criteria are not intended for use as a means to disqualify colleagues from authorship who otherwise meet authorship criteria by denying them the opportunity to meet criterion #s 2 or 3. Therefore, all individuals who meet the first criterion should have the opportunity to participate in the review, drafting, and final approval of the manuscript.

The individuals who conduct the work are responsible for identifying who meets these criteria and ideally should do so when planning the work, making modifications as appropriate as the work progresses. We encourage collaboration and co-authorship with colleagues in the locations where the research is conducted. It is the collective responsibility of the authors, not the journal to which the work is submitted, to determine that all people named as authors meet all four criteria; it is not the role of journal editors to determine who qualifies or does not qualify for authorship or to arbitrate authorship conflicts. If agreement cannot be reached about who qualifies for authorship, the institution(s) where the work was performed, not the journal editor, should be asked to investigate. The criteria used to determine the order in which authors are listed on the byline may vary, and are to be decided collectively by the author group and not by editors. If authors request removal or addition of an author after manuscript submission or publication, journal editors should seek an explanation and signed statement of agreement for the requested change from all listed authors and from the author to be removed or added.

The corresponding author is the one individual who takes primary responsibility for communication with the journal during the manuscript submission, peer-review, and publication process. The corresponding author typically ensures that all the journal’s administrative requirements, such as providing details of authorship, ethics committee approval, clinical trial registration documentation, and disclosures of relationships and activities are properly completed and reported, although these duties may be delegated to one or more co-authors. The corresponding author should be available throughout the submission and peer-review process to respond to editorial queries in a timely way, and should be available after publication to respond to critiques of the work and cooperate with any requests from the journal for data or additional information should questions about the paper arise after publication. Although the corresponding author has primary responsibility for correspondence with the journal, the ICMJE recommends that editors send copies of all correspondence to all listed authors.

When a large multi-author group has conducted the work, the group ideally should decide who will be an author before the work is started and confirm who is an author before submitting the manuscript for publication. All members of the group named as authors should meet all four criteria for authorship, including approval of the final manuscript, and they should be able to take public responsibility for the work and should have full confidence in the accuracy and integrity of the work of other group authors. They will also be expected as individuals to complete disclosure forms.

Some large multi-author groups designate authorship by a group name, with or without the names of individuals. When submitting a manuscript authored by a group, the corresponding author should specify the group name if one exists, and clearly identify the group members who can take credit and responsibility for the work as authors. The byline of the article identifies who is directly responsible for the manuscript, and MEDLINE lists as authors whichever names appear on the byline. If the byline includes a group name, MEDLINE will list the names of individual group members who are authors or who are collaborators, sometimes called non-author contributors, if there is a note associated with the byline clearly stating that the individual names are elsewhere in the paper and whether those names are authors or collaborators.

3. Non-Author Contributors

Contributors who meet fewer than all 4 of the above criteria for authorship should not be listed as authors, but they should be acknowledged. Examples of activities that alone (without other contributions) do not qualify a contributor for authorship are acquisition of funding; general supervision of a research group or general administrative support; and writing assistance, technical editing, language editing, and proofreading. Those whose contributions do not justify authorship may be acknowledged individually or together as a group under a single heading (e.g. "Clinical Investigators" or "Participating Investigators"), and their contributions should be specified (e.g., "served as scientific advisors," "critically reviewed the study proposal," "collected data," "provided and cared for study patients," "participated in writing or technical editing of the manuscript").

Because acknowledgment may imply endorsement by acknowledged individuals of a study’s data and conclusions, editors are advised to require that the corresponding author obtain written permission to be acknowledged from all acknowledged individuals.

Use of AI for writing assistance should be reported in the acknowledgment section.

4. Artificial Intelligence (AI)-Assisted Technology

At submission, the journal should require authors to disclose whether they used artificial intelligence (AI)-assisted technologies (such as Large Language Models [LLMs], chatbots, or image creators) in the production of submitted work. Authors who use such technology should describe, in both the cover letter and the submitted work in the appropriate section if applicable, how they used it. For example, if AI was used for writing assistance, describe this in the acknowledgment section (see Section II.A.3). If AI was used for data collection, analysis, or figure generation, authors should describe this use in the methods (see Section IV.A.3.d). Chatbots (such as ChatGPT) should not be listed as authors because they cannot be responsible for the accuracy, integrity, and originality of the work, and these responsibilities are required for authorship (see Section II.A.1). Therefore, humans are responsible for any submitted material that included the use of AI-assisted technologies. Authors should carefully review and edit the result because AI can generate authoritative-sounding output that can be incorrect, incomplete, or biased. Authors should not list AI and AI-assisted technologies as an author or co-author, nor cite AI as an author. Authors should be able to assert that there is no plagiarism in their paper, including in text and images produced by the AI. Humans must ensure there is appropriate attribution of all quoted material, including full citations.

Next: Disclosure of Financial and Non-Financial Relationships and Activities, and Conflicts of Interest

Keep up-to-date Request to receive an E-mail when the Recommendations are updated.

Subscribe to Changes