When we are accepted in a poster session, does it mean that we need to provide a “poster” (usually in A0 size) + an “article” which explains the topic in a separate file ? Or both poster and article are included in a single PDF file ?

And also this article must include an “abstract” like usual papers?

I ask this question because I have received a strange email from a workshop as follows :

Posters have to be formatted in LNCS-style and not exceed 1 page in
length, with a PDF draft of the proposed poster included as page 2 of
the submission (A0 size in portrait mode, W 841mm x H 1189 mm, with
all fonts embedded in the PDF file). In addition, poster titles
should always start with the phrase “Poster Abstract:”

Here is the website of the conference : http://deic.uab.cat/conferences/cbt/cbt2018/

.

My paper has been accepted in poster session of a conference and in the email that I have received is mentioned that :

Posters have to be formatted in LNCS-style and not exceed 1 page in
length, with a PDF draft of the proposed poster included as page 2 of
the submission (A0 size in portrait mode, W 841mm x H 1189 mm, with
all fonts embedded in the PDF file).

It’s my first time that I want to participate in a poster session. I have worked with LNCS (Lecture Notes in Computer Science) format and it is strange to me that how can I design a poster using LNCS format ? Because this format is very limited for this purpose (consider for example: margins and the space remains for writing). You can see its style here: https://www.sharelatex.com/templates/journals/lecture-notes-in-computer-science-(lncs)

Here is the website of the conference : http://deic.uab.cat/conferences/cbt/cbt2018/

Is someone who has experience of designing a poster using LNCS format ?

Thanks

I am not sure if it is too naive, but can anyone please let me know the difference between a symposium and a workshop.

I aim to submit my paper to a conference where call-for-paper is for the symposium and workshop both. I cannot understand where I should submit this paper.

Where are the chances of getting submission more? and what are the criteria in both?

I am well aware that, when it comes to preparing to give a talk at a conference, “practice makes perfect”. The problem is that, realistically, it tends not to be possible to find an audience for more than one or two run-throughs, so the only remaining possibility is to practice on my own.

Unfortunately, I have always found this to be basically impossible – it’s very hard for me to get over how weird it feels to be “talking to myself”, and if I do try to force myself to proceed, I always find myself getting horrendously tongue-tied in ways that I don’t in front of a live audience. This almost seems like the opposite problem from what many people experience, but I find that the presence of an audience gives me energy and helps to get my brain in gear. I’m curious as to whether other people have the same problem and possible techniques for practicing more effectively.

I am organizing a small workshop which is over subscribed. We will have to reject a few applications. The worst applicants are easy to spot, but there are a few borderline cases, and I’m afraid that a few unfair decisions will necessarily have to be made.

To minimize the damage, I would like to know how many of the registered participant who we accept will actually show up, so that if I am aiming at X actual participants, could I safely accept X + dX?

I have noticed that several name tags always are left unclaimed at small meetings, because of people not showing up. I would like to know how to estimate how many people I can expect not to show up.

I am looking for answers from people who have organized (preferably small) meetings and have first-hand knowledge about the typical numbers.

As a part of my research project, I am almost finished a first paper. I was proud of myself because of the contributions: I was able to take some ideas that has been used in the field for some years now, and I provided a unified point of view. However, as it turned out, some of those results had been already obtained before. Nevertheless, this results seems to be unknown yet in the community of the field.

A very important conference is coming up, in which the main leaders on the topic will be present. My supervisor wants me to give a talk about my results in this event. Given the fact that a few of these results had been already obtained (and of course, I am not taking credit for this), the paper with only my contributions (discarding what was done before) is not a strong paper. Although my supervisor thinks it is OK, I am afraid that giving this talk in front of these experts will result in them not taking me seriously as a researcher in the future. What are your thoughts on that?

I am sorry for naivety.

I found a workshop that fits my research and I want to submit a paper to the workshop. The problem is that the location of the workshop is far away from my hometown and I don’t have funding to cover the travel expenses.

Do you think it is obligatory to visit the workshop (conference) and to give a talk in case the paper is accepted?