Get started
Work

The Glass Podium; A Presenter’s Perspective on Transparency in Scientific Presentation Award

Year: 2026
Type: article
Abstract: Dear Editor, The art of academic presentation mainly revolves around the concepts of effective communication, in-depth knowledge, audiovisual demonstration, and, most essentially, the sharing of knowledge. When an interesting research work is presented in a scientific forum, it can motivate young minds to indulge in research activities. The number of posters and oral papers presented at conferences has increased since scientific presentations have become an integral part of most postgraduate curricula.[1] This has a dual effect on the current scenario. The number of sub-standard presentations, make-up reports, and refurbishing existing literature as interesting cases has increased. On the other hand, several rare and interesting cases, atypical presentations, newer management strategies, and advanced research methods are brought to the forefront. The essence of science endures in its dissemination. When quality presentations reach the podium, whether they get the deserved recognition is debatable. Many times, prizes and awards are decided by the jury, who are deemed to be the experts in the field. Nonetheless, after every conference, a few discontented comments tend to float around claiming bias in the selection process. An element of favoritism has been observed worldwide in various scientific conferences. The participant’s academic reputation or eminence can impact their selection chances, which is termed the Matthew effect.[2] Haqbeen et al. conducted an experiment in an international conference, where they found that award-winning papers had less audience interaction compared to nonaward-winning papers.[3] Furthermore, a gender-based bias in recognizing the scientific merits of women is reported, also known as the Matilda effect.[4] Many studies have emphasized the gender bias in the selection of award candidates,[5] but less attention is given to the nondemocratic methods. This perception could be a reflection of disappointment, but sometimes there is explicit evidence to suggest bias in the selection. This discrepancy, to some extent, can be due to the presenter’s lack of awareness of the jury’s expectations. Hence, the organizers need to take the necessary steps to convey the ground rules even before accepting the manuscripts for screening.[6] Every conference declares instructions and guidelines for the presenters, but there have been no transparent guidelines for the judgment process. Most of the time, the scoring happens within the committee, which refuses to disclose the scoring even after the declaration of the results. The unwarranted secrecy instils doubt. Kuczmarski et al. analysed the abstract selection process for the presentation at medical society conferences and found that only 2 out of 27 societies revealed their scoring system to the participants. And only 3 out of 24 societies adopted pooled domain-specific sub-scores, whereas the remaining 21 societies chose a single gestalt score.[7] A few measures can be undertaken to streamline the evaluation process, at least for the award presentation, where fewer participants will be involved. The panel of jurors can be nominated by a common poll among all the members of the conference region. Preferably, a larger age-diverse group of jurors who can bring knowledge and wisdom. The nomination of judges from the same institute as the presenters can be avoided. The scoring protocol can be provided for public view along with the guidelines for presenters, with or without disclosing the names of the judges. Adopting a multi-domain scoring, with cross-domain aggregation, can be more objective than a Gestalt score. Any major inter-scorer discrepancy must be tallied with a third evaluator, all of them blinded throughout the process. A percentage of scores to be given to the floor audience, which can neutralize the bias. Furthermore, allocating a percentage of the score to the fellow presenters or peers can be considered. This can increase the academic orientation of the participants. The scores must be displayed in the forum for transparency. It is essential for the evaluators to take accountability for their judgment. It also helps the presenters to identify the areas of strength and weakness. A comprehensive summary of the evaluator’s comments on the presentation can be provided to the presenter to help understand the evaluator’s point of view and can improve future research skills and publications, which eventually shape them into better authors in the future.[8] As a token of appreciation, concessions or recognition can be provided for the participants in the subsequent sessions. After all, the purpose of academic gatherings is lost without the students’ participation. Every competition must be a learning step for the participants. It is important for the young researchers to value a fair defeat over a tainted victory. Regardless of the outcome, they must be able to gain knowledge from the attempt, even if it does not earn them a medal or award. Nepomuceno et al. found that the papers published by researchers after a major research award had fewer citations compared to the preaward phase.[9] Ultimately, if a research work can have a significant impact on human welfare, it has achieved the supreme goal. Author contribution statement SV – Concept designing, literature search, manuscript preparation. AS – Manuscript review. Disclosure of use of AI assistive or generative devices There was no generative AI used in the preparation of the manuscript. Declaration of use of copyright tools Not applicable. Financial support and sponsorship Nil. Conflicts of interest There are no conflicts of interest.
DOI: 10.4103/jopsys.jopsys_108_25
Language: English
Open Access status: diamond
OpenAlex ID: W7147361643
FWCI:
Cites: 7
Cited by:
Related to: