Best-in-Track Poster Evaluation Form (If More than One Subtopic in the Track, Use Form WM54B-4)
WMS reserves the right to exclude any poster they deem necessary.

WM54A-4
Session #Poster Prefix Listed in Final Program (e.g. B6, B7) &Five Digit Abstract Number
Poster Set-Up Was on Time
Booth Attended by Author 1st 30 - Minute Period
Booth Attended by Author 2nd 60 - Minute Period
Poster Removal Was on Time
Poster Presentation Title Agrees with Final Program Title
Poster presenter was a “No Show”

1. Compliance with WM Guidelines
2. First Impression
3. Readability
4. Title
5. Aims/Objectives
6. Methods
7. Results
8. Conclusions
9. Content
10. Presenter EffectivenessCheck One:
Unacceptable
Acceptable
Excellent

Check for Yes
Check for Yes
Check for Yes
Check for Yes
Check for Yes
Check for Yes

Poster Scoring: For additional guidance on scoring see form 54D.
(Max 10)(Max 10)(Max 10)(Max 5)(Max 10)(Max 10)(Max 10)(Max 10)(Max 15)(Max 10)
Total Score (of 100 possible points)

Total Score:
Total score was ≤ 60
Total score was 61 - 80
Total score was 81 - 90

Superior
Total Score was > 90Poster recommended for Best-in-Track (Minimum Score of 81 to Qualify)
Check box if Poster is approved for publication. If not, state why below.
Evaluator:
Comments:
Best-in-Topic Poster Evaluation Form (For Use with Tracks with Multiple Topics)
WMS reserves the right to exclude any poster they deem necessary.
Session #Poster Prefix Listed in Final Program (e.g. B6, B7) &WM54B-4
Topic #,,,

Five Digit Abstract Number
Poster Set-Up Was on Time
Booth Attended by Author 1st 30 - Minute Period
Booth Attended by Author 2nd 60 - Minute PeriodPoster Removal Was on Time
Poster Presentation Title Agrees with Final Program Title
Poster presenter was a “No Show”

1. Compliance with WM Guidelines
2. First Impression
3. Readability
4. Title
5. Aims/Objectives
6. Methods
7. Results
8. Conclusions
9. Content
10. Presenter EffectivenessCheck for Yes
Check for Yes
Check for Yes
Check for Yes
Check for Yes
Check for Yes

Poster Scoring: For additional guidance on scoring see form 54D-3.
(Max 10)(Max 10)(Max 10)(Max 5)(Max 10)(Max 10)(Max 10)(Max 10)(Max 15)(Max 10)
Total Score (of 100 possible points)Check One: Total Score:
Unacceptable
Total score was ≤ 60
Acceptable
Total score was 61 - 80
Excellent
Total score was 81 - 90
Superior
Total Score was > 90
Poster is recommended for the Best-in-Topic

Check for each Topic

Check box if Poster is approved for publication If not state why below.
Evaluator:
Comments:

Best-in-Conference Poster Presentation /Paper Evaluation Form
Please Complete All Sections
Track Number

2356

WM54C-47Five Digit Abstract Number
Track Co-Chair/Judges Final Selection Scores of Poster
1. Adherence to WM Guidelines(Max 10)
2. First Impression – Poster(Max 10)

3. Readability(Max 10)

4. Title(Max 5)

5. Aims/Objectives(Max 10)

6. Methods(Max 10)

7. Results(Max 10)

8. Conclusions(Max 10)

9. Content(Max 15)

10. Presenter Effectiveness (from records)(Max 10)
Paper Rating(Max 100)(TBD by Track Co-Chairs for Papers)
Total Poster/ Paper Score (of 100 possible points)
Name
Comments: (Print)

Poster Judge:
Print Last Name: ____________________________(Signature)

ANS Award Winner – Abstract # __________ASME Award Winner – Abstract # __________

Please See Other Side for Paper and Poster Judging

911

WM54D-4

SUMMARY CHECK-LIST OF BEST-IN-CONFERENCE PAPER PREPARATIONREQUIREMENTS
These are the Primary Paper requirements, some of which may not apply to the Paper (= NA). This
checklist is intended to aid Judging.
REQUIREMENTREQUIREMENT
YES/
NA

#NO

YES/
NA

#

1

No spelling errors

19

Correct use of Acronyms

2

Page Header on all pages

20

3

Correct Title placement

21

Correct CONCLUSION section
placement
Correct REFERENCE section format

4

Correct Title format

225

Correct Author(s) listing

236Correct Author name(s) placement

24

Correct
ACKNOWLEDMENTsection placement
Correct text spacing throughout thePaper
Correct referencing of Isotopes

78

Has an ABSTRACT section
Correct ABSTRACT placement

25
26

Correct Figure placement(s)Correct Figure size(s)9Has an INTRODUCTION section
followed by "descriptive" section(s)27

10Correct INTRODUCTION
placement

28

11Paper > 4 pages total

29

1230

13

If > 15 pages, has PAC Chairapproval
All pages correctly numbered

31

Correct numbering of Figurecaption(s)Correct placement of Figurecaption(s)Correct placement of Table(s)14Pages in US letter size

32

Correct numbering of Table(s)1516All margins 2.54 cm (1 inch)
All units are in SI units

33
34

Correct Table format
Correct Table footnote placement

17All text is in one font size (11)35

Correct Equation format

18

All terms, images, logos, software, services, or any other articles or items that are trademarked,registered trademarks, or copyrighted are identified#1234< 7 figures per page are used

Correct Figure/Picture file(s)provided (if not included in text)

COMMENT(S)NOPOSTER JUDGING CRITERIAWM54E-4

Posters are judged at the conference and “Best-in-Conference” is judged after the conference. The main three steps are:1) All posters are rated (by and within each Track) for 1 of 4 possible categories: Superior, Excellent, Acceptable or NonAcceptable.
2) At the conference, the Poster Session Co-chairs led by the Track Lead Judge select the eight “Best-inTrack” Poster Awardees by judging: 1) the Poster with 2) its presenter3) After the conference, a representative and the Lead Judge from each Track will select the two awards for“Best-in-Conference” by evaluating the eight papers with the related posters pdfs from the Best of Trackawardees.
Additional Details for “Best-in-Track” Poster/Presentation judging are:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.

Lead Judges are only from the Tracks having Posters
A Lead Judge for each Track is designated before the conference by the Lead Track Co-Chair.
The Lead Track Co-Chair, or their designee, will be the replacement Judge if any Judge specified is not available.
The Lead Judge in each Track may solicit other Judges to help in the Track’s selection process.
For each Track, the Lead Judge makes the decision of which is the best poster and presentation combination in
their Track (without considering the paper).
6. The paper of each poster must already be reviewed and approved by the Paper Reviewer to be eligible forconsideration for the Best of Track. WMS staff will notify the Lead Judge of any ineligible posters. The Poster
will still be rated, but not eligible for consideration for Best of Track.
7. If a Final Paper has not been approved and all copyrights obtained, it is ineligible from award consideration.
8. The posters should be the ‘picture worth a 1000 words’ in that it is the visual representation of the key elements.
Preferably, a pdf of the Poster would be uploaded to the web before the conference.
9. Presenters need to be at their poster at the designated times, 30 minutes at the start and 60 minutes at the end.
10. For Single Topic Tracks, the Judge(s) will use judging form - WM54A. One or both of the Topic Session CoChairs should act as the Best-in-Track Judges and evaluate all the Posters in their assigned Track andcomplete form WM54A with a single “Best-in-Track” recommendation.
11. For multiple Topic Tracks, the Topic Judge(s) will use judging form -WM54B. One or both of the Topic Session
Co-Chairs Judges should evaluate all the Posters in their Topic and complete form 54B for use in the post
conference analysis. The Track Judges (they can be the same as the Topic Judges) can use the existing data andforms for 54B or obtain from WM Staff a new Form 54A “Best-in-Track “Judging Form for the finalist toidentify their choice for “Best of Track” Finalist. The criteria is the same.
12. The Lead Track Judge will provide their Best-in-Track Award result to the WM Poster Coordinators at least
10 minutes before the end of their poster session.
13. After each Track’s poster session, the WM Poster Coordinators will assist in moving the “Best-in-Track” Poster
to a different poster board reserved for them. Photos will also be taken of each winner with their Poster. The 8“Best-in-Track Poster/Presenter” Posters are set-up in an area for recognition by the attendees for the remaining
length of the conference.
Additional details for the second step, “Best-in-Conference” Poster/Paper judging are:
1. WMS will verify on Saturday evening of the conference the Lead Track Judges or another designee for the“Best of Conference” judging.
2. After the conference, the Paper and the Poster pdf for the Best of Track awardees will be e-mailed by
WMS Staff to the Judges.
3. The Judges may have conference, video, or other similar group communication efforts for discussion andthen vote on the two best “poster / paper” combinations for the conference. One combination for the ANS
and one for the ASME Best of Conference awards
4. The Lead Track Co-Chair, or their designee, will be the replacement Judge if any Judge specified isnot available.
5. Selection for the two “Best of Conference” awards should be made three months after the conference.

WM54D-4

Each Poster Presentation must be clear, concise, important, relevant and eye-catching. Remember, if as the Judge you
have e read the Title and the Conclusion and still do not understand the Presentation, then the Poster/PowerPoint should
not receive a high score.
1.

Adherence to WM guidelines:• Information legible at 5 feet or provided via handout.
• Title, Author, Affiliation in letters 2-inches-high at the top.
• Used the provided Poster board or PowerPoint ~40-inch x ~90-inch projection.

Possible Points: 10
Superior = 10,
Good = 8,
Fair = 4,
Poor = 0

2. First Impression-Poster:• The Poster stimulates interest and discussion.
• Poster is easy to read.
• The sequence in the Poster is easy to follow.
• There is a good flow of information (logical layout).
• Poster visually organized.
• Color schemes are easy on the eye (Author minimized use of red/green together (color blindness issue).
• Poster is uncrowded, easy to review.
3. Readability:• The Poster or Slides contain an appropriate amount of text.
• The Poster is succinct with the appropriate amount of information.
• Grammar or spelling is correct.
• The descriptions are simple and brief.
• Jargon was avoided.
• Photographs, drawings, charts, tables, and graphs are simple, well organized, and well labeled. The
message is clear.
4. Title:• The Title is specific/adequate.
• The Title is unambiguous.
• Title is the appropriate number of characters (<100).
5. Aims/ Objectives:• The aim/objectives are clearly stated.
• The aim/objectives are supported.

Possible Points: 106.

Methods:• The methods are adequately detailed and understandable.
• The methods are appropriate for the audience.
• The methods are original.
• The methods are supported with enough explanation.
7. Results:• The results are clear and legible and are illustrated via text, graphs, figures, charts, drawings.
• The results are presented in a logical sequence.
• The results are believable.
8. Conclusions:• Conclusions presented reflect the aims and are supported by the data presented.
• There a memorable “take-home” message.
• The point of the Poster is clear.
9a. Content - If Poster is Scientific in Nature• The research was put into broader context and/or justification was provided for the research.
• The content was suitable for the intended audience.
• There was sufficient scientific explanation.

Possible Points: 109b. Content - If Poster is Programmatic or Administrative in Nature:• If Poster was on communication of scientific content, the original target audience was identified.
• This method of communication was unique or different.
• The results clearly identify why it was or was not successful.

Possible Points: 1510. Presenter effectiveness: (Use First Stage Results for Second Stage Judging)• The Presenter’s explanations demonstrate knowledge/ ownership/enthusiasm for his/her work.
• The Presenter was able to explain simply answers to questions versus lecturing or reading from text.

Possible Points: 10

Superior = 10,
Good = 8,
Fair = 4,
Poor = 0

Possible Points: 10
Superior = 10,
Good = 8,
Fair = 4,
Poor = 0

Possible Points: 5
Superior = 5,Good = 3,
Fair = 1, Poor = 0

Possible Points: 10
Superior = 10,
Good = 8,
Fair = 4, Poor = 0
Superior = 10,
Good = 8,
Fair = 4,
Poor = 0

Possible Points: 10
Superior = 10,
Good = 8,
Fair = 4, Poor = 0

Possible Points: 10
Superior = 10,
Good = 8,
Fair = 4, Poor = 0

Possible Points: 15
Superior = 15,
Good = 10,
Fair = 5,
Poor = 0
Superior = 15,
Good = 10,
Fair = 5,
Poor = 0
Superior = 10,
Good = 8,
Fair = 4, Poor = 0