What Makes a Good Poster? Evaluating #BetterPoster and Classic Formats at a Scientific Cancer Conference

Abstract

Academic posters have evolved significantly, shifting from rare presentation opportunities to a common method of scientific dissemination. As speaking time and individualized attention for posters have diminished, new challenges have emerged, emphasizing the need for effective visual communication. This study aimed to evaluate the adoption and effectiveness of the #BetterPoster (BP) format compared to the classic format (C) and to determine whether the modified format contributed to an improved experience for both viewers and readers. At the national Danish Cancer Research Conference 2024, a total of 103 posters were categorized and assessed systematically by independent raters using four criteria: first impression, organization, poster format, and wordiness. Statistical analyses, including t-tests and Kendall's W for interrater reliability, compared the formats, while Pearson correlations explored relationships between "first impression" and "organization," "poster format," or "wordiness." Results indicated that the BP format achieved higher scores for all criteria, with significant differences in first impression (p = 1.64e-06). However, both formats exhibited potential for high scores when designed mindfully, balancing text and visual elements. While the BP format improved audience engagement, excessive simplification or disorganization reduced its effectiveness. Classic posters, although often more text-heavy, could also be effective when structured carefully. The findings highlight the importance of coherent design and training in visual communication, suggesting that well-executed posters, regardless of format, can enhance academic engagement and knowledge dissemination. These insights could inform future guidelines for academic poster presentations, fostering more engaging and effective communication at conferences.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 5 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.