Evaluation of Platform / Poster Presentations during Annual Conferences for awards


The ISCB has instituted Prizes as follows :
1. ISCB - Dr B R Seshachar Prize - ONE for best poster presentation - Rs. 500/-
2. ISCB - Dr Manasi Ram Prize - ONE for best poster presentation - Rs 500/-
3. ISCB - Dr. S.R.V. Rao/ISCB - Dr.V.C. Shah Prize - ONE for best poster presentation - Rs. 500/-
4. ISCB - Dr. S.R.V. Rao/ISCB - Dr. V.C. Shah Prize - ONE for best platform presentation - Rs. 500/-

The Dr. S.R.V. Rao and Dr. V.C. Shah Prizes will be awarded every alternate years. Hence at the XVI All India Cell Biology conference Dr. S.R.V. Rao Prizes will be awarded and at the XVII All India Cell Biology Conference Dr. V.C. Shah Prizes will be awarded and the same sequence will be continued henceforth.

One person will not be eligible to receive more than one prize and any one who has received a prize at an earlier ISCB Conference will not be eligible to compete again. The Secretary will provide the list of earlier winners.

For all the awards, the Secretary in consultation with the President shall appoint a Committee of at least 3 senior ISCB members to evaluate the platform and poster presentations for the above awards. The names of the committee members will be kept confidential. Guidelines for evaluation of the presentations will be given by the Secretary to members of the evaluation committee. The evaluation will have to be strictly according to criteria laid down in the guidelines for the purpose. The Committee will communicate its verdict to the President and Secretary of ISCB, who in the event of a tie for any one or more awards, will decide to split the prize money or give entire amount to each winner. The results will be announced at the Concluding Session and the prizes and certificates will also be given. The ISCB will pay the award money from its funds. The awards for best platform and poster presentations are open to Student, a member of Society who are below 30 years of age at the time of the Conference. The presentations will be evaluated by a committee constituted by ISCB for the purpose prior to the beginning of presentations in Platform or Poster sessions. The Convenor of the Annual Conference would provide to the Secretary, ISCB a list of Platform and Poster presentations that are eligible for contest. The different presentations should be evaluated by this committee on a number of counts suggested in the following. Each presentation should be evaluated on every count and the grading done should be entered on paper. In the event of a tie, the committee will have the full authority to then adjudge the presentations on relative merits.


The oral presentations should be evaluated on following counts :
1. Quality of work
2. Presentation
3. Illustrations
4. Discussion of the paper
5. Time

1. Quality of Work :

The scientific quality of work should be judged on following grounds :

a. Nature of Enquiry :
This should be assessed as follows : has the student addressed himself/herself to a logical question on the basis of existing information or alternatively just any problem has been taken for the sake of experimentation ? Is the enqiry justified in view of existing results and have the right questions been asked ?
b. Planning and Execution of Experiments :
The evaluation should be on following counts are the experiments properly planned and executed ? Does the plan of experiments lead to understanding of the questions asked ? Are proper controls kept ? Do the techniques used have sensitivity to provide information sought ? Have right chemicals/reagents been used ?
c. Results of Experiments :
Do the results obtained provide sufficient information to justify the conclusions drawn ?Is the interpretation right and are the results properly analyzed ? (e.g. carrying out of a statistical analysis does not necessarily mean that results have been properly analyzed)
d. Discussion :
The results should be discussed well in the light of existing information. No unjustified claims should be made. Hypothesizing may be encouraged but far-fetched relationships are to be discouraged.

2. The Presentation :

The presentation should be precise and to the point. The speaker may not be fluent in English nor should be judged on high flown English. But even with limited vocabulary, he should be able to get the idea across to the audience. Recitation of pre-written speeches/presentation should be discouraged. Instead the student should be judged for ability to explain to the audience in one’s own simple language.

3. Illustrations :

These should be clear and of good quality. Tables should be judged on their ability to explain the data. Graphs/Histograms etc. should be similarly judged on their relevance, aesthetic quality and their accuracy (careful drawing, proper use of scales etc.). Photomicrographs should be of good quality. The diapositives/ transparencies should be neat and should reveal the intended data/details etc. Too many slides should not be shown to illustrate single point.

4. Discussion:

The student should be able to defend himself/herself well with answers to the point. The student should also be “honest” to accept any shortcomings/flaws in paper. Justification of apparent mistakes should be discouraged.

5. Time :

The paper must be finished within the allotted time. Going beyond the allotted time will be discredit.


All the above also apply to evaluation of presentations through posters. However, more emphasis should be given on the quality of poster. The written matter should preferably be in block letters rather than in running hand and the letters should be of a size easily readable from a distance of about 2 ft. The quality of photographs/other illustrations should be of high quality and they should be appropriately trimmed, appropriately arranged and neatly mounted.

Oral Presentations

Quality of Work : 0 to 4 +
Presentation : 0 to 2 +
Illustrations : 0 to 2+
Discussion : 0 to 2+
Time : 0 to 2+
Total : n+/12


Quality of Work : 0 to 4+
Illustrations : 0 to 4+
Discussion : 0 to 2+

Total : n+/10

The members of the evaluation committee must listen to all oral presentations and must see all posters enlisted for contest. After their assessment is over, they would meet and finalize the verdict on the basis of their markings and communicate the same to the President/Secretary of Indian Society of Cell Biology, who would then announce the results and distribute the prizes at the Concluding Session. If no presentation was found by the Committee worthy of an award, the same may not be given at a particular Conference.