pp

Putting up a finished project onto a poster board to present has been a part of science forever. Some things constitute a good poster while others bad, and some combination land most posters in between. A scientific poster can be viewed as good to different people for different reasons, like the opinion of the article or the subject matter being discussed. These are important but also some things across the board that make a good poster.  Such as, the title must sum up the experiment is an understandable way. The bear minimum requirement for the title should be that, but a good title will also intrigue the reader and almost trap them into wanting to read the rest. The title “ Using zebrafish larval models to study brain injury, locomotor and neuroinflammatory outcomes following intracerebral haemorrhage [version 2; referees: 1 approved, 1 approved with reservations]” is a basic title, just getting the point across, barely simplifying it. Compared to this title, “Are we aiming to miss in translational autoimmunity treatments?[version 1; referees: awaiting peer review]”, which involves the reader and tries to grab their interest with a question.  Another important aspect of a poster is the display of the data, if it is hard to see or make sense out of, the reader is more inclined to lose interest. Having the entire project be displayed in such a manner that someone who has no clue on the subject can generally figure it out is the aim. This means using words that are not unique to the field of study or if used explaining them in everyday terms. Another good key for quality posters is length, if the poster is too long it can scare readers away and if too short make them not see the point in the project. Many good things contribute to the quality of posters, these are just a few.