Results 1 to 10 of 27

Thread: Growth of the ASB meeting

Threaded View

Previous Post Previous Post   Next Post Next Post
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    University Park, PA, USA

    Growth of the ASB meeting

    Hello BIOMCH-L:

    Part of my Program Chair column in the current ASB newsletter is about how the ASB meeting has grown in size over the last few years. Here is a slightly modified version of what I wrote:

    I would like to bring to the attention of the membership [and others who may attend ASB in the future] some questions related to the recent growth in the submission rate. Just a few years ago 400 to 500 submissions was the norm, but in 2015 and 2016 we had around 700 submissions and this year there were 800 abstracts submitted. If the number of submissions stays at this level or continues to rise, we may need to change how the meeting is organized. Faced with 1000 submissions sometime in the near future, the Society might have to choose from the following options:

    1. Maintain the usual meeting schedule while finding more room for posters (essentially the path we have taken this year in Boulder, but one that is not always available). With more posters presented in the same amount of time, there may not be sufficient time for attendees to view the posters.
    2. Keep the schedule the same, but maintain the podium-to-poster ratio by adding more parallel sessions. This would be more expensive than finding more room for posters but would provide more opportunities for members to serve as session moderators and more room for symposia.
    3. Reject more abstracts while keeping the schedule essentially the same. The rejection rate at ASB has historically been low, 5% to 10%. Would a higher rejection rate of 25% to 50% be right for ASB?
    4. Change the schedule to make more poster sessions of longer duration while reducing the time devoted to podium and thematic poster presentations (similar to the annual meeting of the Society for Neuroscience).
    5. Lengthen the meeting by a day. Adding programming on a fifth day would provide more room for presentations, but would make the meeting more expensive to attend due to the added lodging costs.

    The ASB Executive Board welcomes comments from the membership and others who attend ASB on how to manage the growth of the annual meeting. If the recent growth in submissions is maintained or increases, how should we manage this growth when planning the meeting? Is one of the above options preferable, or are there other options we should discuss? Please consider adding your voice to this dialogue.

    Stephen Piazza, PhD
    Program Chair, 2017 Annual Meeting of the American Society of Biomechanics

    p.s.: I’ve chosen to post this in the General Discussion forum rather than in Events and Conferences because I’m not announcing a conference – apologies if this is in the wrong place.
    Last edited by spiazza29; 07-29-2017 at 01:58 PM.

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts