Tweet
Fred Yeadon wrote:
>expected to apply this year. In other words abstracts probably have a 99%
>chance of acceptance. But this is only my view of the world.
One additional piece of information may be useful. This year
more than 800 abstracts were submitted, which is about twice as
many as expected. This partly explains the delays. It also may
mean that more abstracts are rejected or moved to poster
sessions. But this should apply mostly to those who submitted
multiple abstracts. There's probably no reason to worry; as Fred
said, more delegates means more revenue.
Limiting the number of slides does not sound like a good idea.
Even without limitations, I have seen many examples of people
trying to cram too much information on one slide. This slide
limitation policy may present a welcome challenge to the same
people, and they may "boldly go where no presenter has gone
before". I will bring my binoculars, just in case.
Like Fred and Giovanni, I prefer being responsible for the
typesetting and formatting of my abstracts.
Maybe we should stop this ISB-bashing. It may relieve
frustration, but the organizers are not subscribing to Biomch-L.
It is better to approach them directly with some constructive
criticism.
-- Ton van den Bogert
Human Performance Laboratory
University of Calgary, Canada
(who is still waiting for abstract acceptance from ISB'93)
>expected to apply this year. In other words abstracts probably have a 99%
>chance of acceptance. But this is only my view of the world.
One additional piece of information may be useful. This year
more than 800 abstracts were submitted, which is about twice as
many as expected. This partly explains the delays. It also may
mean that more abstracts are rejected or moved to poster
sessions. But this should apply mostly to those who submitted
multiple abstracts. There's probably no reason to worry; as Fred
said, more delegates means more revenue.
Limiting the number of slides does not sound like a good idea.
Even without limitations, I have seen many examples of people
trying to cram too much information on one slide. This slide
limitation policy may present a welcome challenge to the same
people, and they may "boldly go where no presenter has gone
before". I will bring my binoculars, just in case.
Like Fred and Giovanni, I prefer being responsible for the
typesetting and formatting of my abstracts.
Maybe we should stop this ISB-bashing. It may relieve
frustration, but the organizers are not subscribing to Biomch-L.
It is better to approach them directly with some constructive
criticism.
-- Ton van den Bogert
Human Performance Laboratory
University of Calgary, Canada
(who is still waiting for abstract acceptance from ISB'93)