Research Poster and Platform Presentation Challenge

The 2025 INTERACT Symposium (Oct. 22 – 24) will host three poster sessions and provide an opportunity for graduate researchers to orally present their work.

Selection of poster and platform presentations will be based on submission and review of an abstract addressing one of three topics:

• Basic science
• Clinical and translational research
• Public health and health policy
  

Additionally, those selected for oral presentations will do so during one of four topical sessions focusing on:

• Microbiome
• Epidemiology/computational
• Oncology
• Zoonotic Diseases.

• Abstract Submission and Review

  An abstract is required as part of each Submitted Entry.

   

  Abstract requirements:

  • All abstracts must be submitted using the approved template available via the Challenge Website here.
  • Abstracts should indicate the presenter’s preferred format: poster, oral, poster or oral.
  • Abstracts must be submitted without pictures, graphs, or tables.
  • The abstract must not exceed 400 words. The word count does not include the abstract title, page numbering, or any ancillary entrant
  • Citations or references are not a necessity with the If an entrant’s abstract is accepted for consideration, citations or references may be included with the poster.

  Each abstract must address one of the topics:

  • Basic Science: Submissions in Basic Science must relate to molecular, pharmacologic, or physiologic mechanisms of disease or Includes studies that utilize human tissue or animal models to address disease or therapeutic mechanisms, as well as basic studies examining fundamental aspects of molecular and cellular regulation and genetics studies.
  • Clinical and Translational Research: Submissions in Clinical and Translational Research must center around human subject research aimed towards prevention, diagnosis, or treatment of disease processes either fully in the clinical setting, or as a bridge between the lab and clinical practice.
  • Public Health and Health Policy:  Submissions in Public Health and Health Policy must relate to the science of protecting and improving the health of people and their communities. This work is achieved by promoting healthy lifestyles, researching disease and injury prevention, and detecting, preventing, and responding to infectious diseases. This topic also includes studies on COVID-19, vaccinations, and health equity.
• Poster Presentation

  Abstracts of those expressing an interest in the Poster Symposium will be assessed by a committee (see Scoring Criteria).  Those invited and choosing to participate in the Poster Symposium are required to display a digital poster at the event.

  • The digital poster is limited to one PowerPoint slide.
  • The deadline for Poster Symposium Participants to submit digital materials will be announced.

  A panel of at least three (3) judges will deliver constructive feedback on the research.

  Judges will convene to determine the prize winners.
  
  

  It is recommended to build your poster in Microsoft PowerPoint:
  
  

  To design your poster, use the PowerPoint template provided HERE. It will automatically size your poster to fit the digital screens that your poster will be displayed on at the ConocoPhillips OSU Alumni Center.
  
  

  When finished designing your poster in PowerPoint, go to File, then Export and select the PDF format (if it is not already selected).

  Once exported as a PDF, you can submit for the Poster Challenge.

   

  If you are using any other graphic design software, you must use one of the sizes listed below.

  - 8.88 inches wide by 7.5 inches tall

  - 1280 pixels wide by 1080 pixels tall

  In addition make sure and set DPI at 300.

  Save as a PDF file and submit for the Poster Challenge.
  
  

  Poster Design Tips
  The OSU Library has a resource page for poster design ideas and tips, as well as links to other resources; see: https://info.library.okstate.edu/poster-printing/tips
  

• Platform Presentation

  Abstracts of those expressing an interest in the Platform Presentations will be assessed by a committee based on the Scoring Criteria (below) and alignment with the session topics.  Graduate researchers selected for Platform Presentations will be asked to deliver a 15-minute, PowerPoint presentation.

  • Presenters should limit their presentations to ~12 minutes, allow several minutes for questions from the attendees.
  • The date and time of the presentation and deadline for Platform Presentation Participants to submit digital materials will be announced.

  A panel of at least three (3) judges will score Platform Presentations by graduate researchers and convene to determine the prize winners.

• Deadlines

  The deadline to submit an abstract for consideration of either the Poster Symposium or Platform Presentation is 11:59 p.m. Central Time on Friday, July 25, 2025 (“Abstract Submission Deadline”).  The abstract review period when submitted entries are reviewed and scored begins the week of July 28, 2025, and the entrants accepted for either the Poster Symposium or Platform Presentation will be notified by Friday, August 15, 2025.

• Prizes

  A total of six (6) prizes of five hundred dollars ($500.00) will be awarded to the three (3) Finalists among the Poster Symposium Participants and the three (3) Finalists among the Platform Presentation Participants.

• Abstract Guidelines

  Note: All abstracts must be submitted using the approved Outline below and must not include pictures, graphs, or tables. The abstract must not exceed 400 words, excluding the abstract title, page numbering, or any ancillary entrant information. Citations or references are not a necessity with the abstract. If your abstract is accepted for consideration, you may include citations or references with your poster.
  
  

  Abstract Title

  Background

  Methods

  Results

  Conclusion

• Abstract Scoring Criteria

  Background/Objective

  5 rating

  • The background strongly demonstrates that the literature has been reviewed.
  • The background is strong, clear, and thorough, yet concise in providing an overview of the problem.
  • Based on the presented background and knowledge gap, a specific, clear and testable research objective is stated.

  4 rating

  • The background demonstrates that the literature has been reviewed.
  • The background is clear and provides a thorough introduction to the problem.
  • Based on the presented background and knowledge gap, a clear and testable research objective is stated.

  3 rating

  • The background partially demonstrates that the literature has been reviewed.
  • The background is clear and provides a brief introduction to the problem.
  • Based on the presented background and knowledge gap, a clear and testable research objective is stated.

  2 rating

  • The background very weakly demonstrates that the literature has been reviewed.
  • The background provides a weak introduction to the problem that is not informed.
  • A clear, but untestable research objective is stated.

  1 rating

  • The background does not demonstrate that the literature has been reviewed.
  • The background does not provide an overview of the problem.
  • A vague, untestable research objective is stated.

   

  Methods/Results

  5 rating

  • The methods provide a strong and clear explanation of the study design and are very clearly and concisely described.
  • The results strictly follow the presentation of the methods.
  • The results are clear and connected to the purpose of the study.

   

  4 rating

  • The methods provide a clear explanation of the study design and are well described.
  • The results mainly follow the presentation of the methods.
  • The results are clear and connected to the purpose of the study.

  3 rating

  • The methods provide an adequate explanation of the study design.
  • The results attempt to present findings but might be unclear or some information is missing from the results.
  • The results follow the presentation of the methods.

  2 rating

  • The methods provide an unorganized explanation of the overall study design.
  • The results attempt to present findings but might be unclear or some information is missing from the results.
  • Results loosely follow the presentation of methods.

   

  1 rating

  • The methods provide an unclear and unorganized explanation of the study design.
  • The results do not present concrete data, they are unclear findings and/or do not relate to the study purpose.
  • The results do not follow the presentation of the methods.

   

  Discussion/Conclusion

  5 rating

  • The conclusion is fully supported by the study results and does not overstate the findings.
  • Provides knowledge that likely will change action.

  4 rating

  • The conclusion is mostly supported by the study results.
  • Provides knowledge that may change action.

  3 rating

  • The conclusion is only partially supported by the study results.
  • Provides knowledge that likely will change action.

  2 rating

  • The conclusion is weakly supported by the study results.
  • Provides knowledge that likely will not change action.

  1 rating

  • The conclusion is not supported by the study results.
  • Provides knowledge that likely will not change action.

   

  Significance/Interest to the audience

  5 rating

  • The study will definitely enhance clinical, research or educational behaviors with novel information
  • The study will definitely attract the attention and interest of the audience
  • The study is well-structured, logical and highlights the importance of the proposed work.

  4 rating

  • The study will very likely enhance clinical, research or educational behaviors with novel information
  • The study will very likely attract the attention and interest of the audience
  • The study is partially well-structured and highlights the importance of the proposed work.

  3 rating

  • The study will somewhat likely enhance clinical, research or educational behaviors with novel information.
  • The study will attract the attention and interest of the audience
  • The study is structured and highlights the importance of the proposed work.

  2 rating

  • The study will not likely enhance clinical, research or educational behaviors with novel information.
  • The study will attract the attention and interest of a narrow audience.
  • The study is weakly structured and does not highlight the importance of the proposed work.

  1 rating

  • Not likely to enhance all/or either clinical, research or educational behaviors with novel information
  • The study will not attract the attention and interest of the audience
  • The study demonstrates some effort to highlight the importance of the proposed work.