Schools Etiquette of writing research poster acknowledgments?

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers around the appropriate way to acknowledge contributions on a presentation poster. It is suggested that acknowledgments should be concise and focused on significant contributions, such as funding agencies and key collaborators. Listing all individuals who assisted in minor tasks, like mixing concrete, is generally discouraged. Instead, it is recommended to include only those who made substantial contributions, with a brief acknowledgment for others if necessary. The format for acknowledgments should resemble that of academic papers, emphasizing professional titles and last names rather than first names or personal relationships, such as thanking parents. Overall, the consensus is to keep the acknowledgment section succinct and relevant to the work presented.
CivilSigma
Messages
227
Reaction score
58
I have written the following on my poster:

Special thanks to: "Professor Name" and "Professor Name" for their support through out this project, my numerous colleagues, #1, #2, #3, #4, #5, #6 for their assistance during lab work and last but not least to my parents "Dad" and "Mom" for their support through out this journey.

Is this good enough?

I am not sure if I should actually write the names of my parents and whether I should list all the people who shared tips and tricks with me in the lab.

For the latter, is there a general rule to follow for people who helped me with lab work, i.e helping me only mixing concrete. Can I just list first names when thanking colleagues to save space?

Thanks!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I think you are overdoing it just a bit. This is not your thesis. It is "just" a poster for a presentation, presumably at a conference.

What you should acknowledge is funding agencies, if such were used to support the work. If this is a collaborative work, then the names of all the people involved (including your supervisor), should be listed as the "authors" of the work, even though you may list your name as the first one on that list of authors.

If you feel very strongly about thanking someone not on the list of authors who help you tremendously in the work, then include a brief thank you in the acknowledgment. Otherwise, most of what you intended to include is not necessary.

Zz.
 
  • Like
Likes CivilSigma
ZapperZ said:
If you feel very strongly about thanking someone not on the list of authors who help you tremendously in the work, then include a brief thank you in the acknowledgment.

A possible example of this would be "Samples provided by Dr. Bunsen Honeydew, Department of Chemistry, Muppet University". That person should be acknowledged, because their work is critical, but not an author if they are not responsible for the scientific conclusions.
 
  • Like
Likes CivilSigma
It should be very similar to what you see in a paper. The standard form would be something like,

"This work was supported by *FUNDING AGENCY* grants XXX and YYY. The authors gratefully acknowledge the *helpful discussions with/samples provided by* Prof. X and Dr. Y"

It's not a thesis acknowledgment, definitely don't thank your parents. If you want to refer to colleagues, use their title and last name. I would not list everyone. I wouldn't make it much longer than what I outlined above, it's just a poster.
 
  • Like
Likes CivilSigma
TL;DR Summary: I want to do a PhD in applied math but I hate group theory, is this a big problem? Hello, I am a second-year math and physics double major with a minor in data science. I just finished group theory (today actually), and it was my least favorite class in all of university so far. It doesn't interest me, and I am also very bad at it compared to other math courses I have done. The other courses I have done are calculus I-III, ODEs, Linear Algebra, and Prob/Stats. Is it a...
I’ve been looking through the curricula of several European theoretical/mathematical physics MSc programs (ETH, Oxford, Cambridge, LMU, ENS Paris, etc), and I’m struck by how little emphasis they place on advanced fundamental courses. Nearly everything seems to be research-adjacent: string theory, quantum field theory, quantum optics, cosmology, soft matter physics, black hole radiation, etc. What I don’t see are the kinds of “second-pass fundamentals” I was hoping for, things like...

Similar threads

Replies
9
Views
2K
Replies
6
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
6
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
3K
Replies
6
Views
2K
Back
Top