CORROSION 2017 Student Poster Judging Guidelines

Evaluation of the Student Posters should be based on the criteria outlined in this document.
It is important that judges keep students’ educational level in mind; i.e. poster presenters can be
undergraduate, graduate, or post graduate students.
Judges should evaluate (i) Impact, (ii) Clarity of Messaging and (iii) Ability to Convey Key
Findings. More specifically:
 The student should be comfortable with the content of the poster and be able to talk
through the key points in about five minutes.
 Attention should be paid to briefly explaining the motivation for the work, the
hypothesis, an example of the key experimental work, and the takeaway conclusion
and/or impact.
 The student should refrain from speaking about experimental details unless asked,
especially if employing well-understood techniques; e.g. it is not necessary to focus
discussion on the type of electrode, the cell configuration, scan rate, experimental
temperature, sample prep, etc.
 It is recommended that the student seek to capture the key message in a single bullet
or sentence.
The criteria below should be addressed, as appropriate, in the content of the poster.
1. Scientific/Engineering/Technology Approach
 The poster should present the work in a logical framework that makes clear the
problem or scientific challenge being addressed.
 In some cases, this will best be communicated through the statement of a hypothesis.
 In cases of more applied work, a problem statement that motivated the work is
 Application of the scientific method should be reflected in the connection between
the problem, hypothesis, the experimental work conducted and the conclusions
 If the poster is based on ongoing work, the path to conclude the work should be
 Potential future work stemming from the work done may be relevant.
2. Thoroughness
 The poster should convey an understanding of the research landscape for the work,
e.g., reference to prior studies that the work builds upon or statement of the
controlling theory.
 Conclusions should be defensible in terms of the experimental work, simulations
and/or theories presented, and should not be speculative. In some cases, a refined
hypothesis may be more appropriate that a conclusion.
3. Novelty of Approach
 The poster should convey the creativity brought to bear on the problem. This could
take the form of a new theory, new experimental approach, new computational
simulation or novel application of existing techniques.
 Not all projects will require innovation in approach. However, in all cases is
important that the student understand and be able to convey the rationale for the
selections of the techniques brought to bear on the problem.
4. Potential Impact on the Corrosion Community and/or the Public
 The posted should convey the scientific or technological impact of the work.
 As mentioned above, it is useful exercise to summarize this impact into a single
statement. This should be the one big take-away from your work.
 If you only have 30 seconds to talk to someone about your poster, this should be the
statement you refer to.
5. Clarity and Neatness of Poster
 The poster should largely stand on its own if the student is not present to talk to the
audience. However, it should not come across as a technical paper cast onto a 4x8
poster board.
 Statements should be thoughtful and the flow of the information should be intuitive.
 For key statements, figure captions, axis labels and anything else the audience is
expected to read, the font size should be notionally 16 pt or larger.
 References and other ancillary information can be smaller in font size, but there
should be no expectation that such text will be read or discussed.
 As with any technical communication, efforts should be made to avoid typos,
misspellings and poor grammar.
 All acronyms must be defined and units specified in equations, on plots and in tables.
Monetary prizes will be awarded to 1st, 2nd, and 3rd place recipients in each of the three corrosion