Poster awards recognise rigour at ISABC 2023
The 16th International Symposium on Applied Bioinorganic Chemistry, hosted by the University of Ioannina in June 2023, drew delegates from across the globe to exchange findings on metal-based therapeutics, enzymology, and coordination chemistry. Among the symposium's most visible traditions, the poster awards celebrate researchers whose visual storytelling translates complex molecular behaviour into clear, defensible scientific arguments.
For Australian delegates travelling from Sydney, Melbourne, or Brisbane to Epirus, the judging process shapes which findings earn recognition on a stage that travels back to local seminars at Monash University, UNSW, or the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation campus at Clayton. Understanding how the rubric works helps submitters tailor both their abstracts and the conversations that follow.
Panel composition and expertise
The judging panel assembles a balanced cohort of established researchers working in metalloproteins, medicinal inorganic chemistry, and bio-inspired catalysis, alongside early-career investigators recognised through national academies and learned societies. Independence between assessors remains a guiding principle: each panellist scores without consultation in the first round, then reconvenes to reconcile differences during a moderated deliberation in Ioannina.
Conflicts of interest are declared in advance, mirroring protocols familiar to grant reviewers administering ARC Discovery Projects or NHMRC investigator grants in Australia. Where a panellist has collaborated with a presenter within the previous three years, that score is reassigned to an independent reviewer. This careful separation mirrors the documentary rigour expected by funding bodies such as the international thermochemistry network, which has long advocated for transparent evaluation across disciplinary boundaries.
Pandemic-era disruption had previously forced meetings onto hybrid platforms, and ISABC organisers retained video submissions as an accommodation for researchers facing travel barriers. Delegates who submitted remotely receive the same scoring template, with the chair moderating asynchronous discussions before the in-person deliberation in Greece.
Scoring dimensions and weighting
The scoring rubric rests on five intersecting criteria, weighted to reflect the priorities of applied bioinorganic chemistry. Scientific novelty captures originality of mechanistic insight, whether the work introduces a new copper(II) complex, a spectroscopic fingerprint for an iron-sulphur cluster, or a kinetic model for enzymatic turnover. Methodological soundness evaluates whether controls, replicates, and instrumentation are adequate to support the claims.
Visual clarity assesses the poster's legibility, graphical logic, and capacity to communicate a self-contained scientific narrative from a distance of one to two metres. Oral depth, captured during the dedicated poster session, measures how the researcher defends methods, acknowledges limits, and situates findings within the broader literature. Finally, broader impact considers translational potential, reproducibility, and the work's relevance to pharmaceutical development, environmental remediation, or diagnostic imaging.
Each criterion carries a defined point allocation communicated to submitters, helping applicants calibrate effort where it carries the greatest weight.
Pre-assessment and on-site deliberation
Before delegates reach the lakeside halls of Ioannina, abstracts undergo a preliminary screening managed by the symposium secretariat. This stage focuses on compliance: confirmed registration, format conformance, and thematic fit within bioinorganic chemistry, from model compounds through to whole-cell imaging.
Accepted posters proceed to the panel scoring phase, where each entry is read in advance and assigned two primary reviewers based on thematic fit. Scores are combined against a normalised index, allowing fair comparison across sub-disciplines such as supramolecular assemblies, radiochemistry, or antimicrobial metal complexes. Discussions during the poster session often reveal nuances that reshape a final assessment.
Local context shapes how Australian applicants experience this workflow. Researchers based at the University of Queensland or the University of Adelaide typically prepare posters weeks in advance, factoring in the eight-hour time difference between Canberra and Athens to coordinate rehearsals with Greek-based collaborators. The abstracts submission portal accommodates time-zone variation by remaining open continuously during the call window.
Recognition for early-career researchers
Two poster prizes explicitly recognise early-career contributors: a young scientist travel award for postgraduate students and postdoctoral fellows within five years of PhD completion, and a general poster prize open to all career stages. Eligibility conditions for the travel support follow regulations analogous to those governing the Australian Government's Research Training Program, requiring enrolment in a higher-degree program or an equivalent appointment.
The panel assigns a single winner in each category, with honourable mentions reserved for entries within five percent of the leading score. Awardees receive a certificate, an honorarium, and an invitation to deliver a short flash presentation at the closing plenary in Ioannina. Winners are also profiled through the symposium's official channels and the abstracts archive, extending the visibility of their work into subsequent conference cycles.
A practical guide for submitters
Successful posters treat the document itself as a piece of scientific writing, not a slide deck pasted to a board. A clear title, a one-sentence hypothesis, an unambiguous workflow diagram, and a discussion section that contextualises the findings against the existing literature consistently score higher than densely packed text panels. Including absolute yields, statistical errors, and at least one boundary-result figure signals intellectual honesty that reviewers value.
Applicants should also rehearse the two-minute elevator pitch that often determines oral depth scores. Panellists frequently probe alternative interpretations, missing controls, or how the system would behave in vivo for biological studies. Preparing three to five thoughtful answers in advance transforms the poster session from an interrogation into a productive exchange.
Reaching the awards stage requires that registration, fee payment, and abstract upload are completed before the published deadlines. Late entries cannot be considered, regardless of scientific merit, so Australian-based teams are encouraged to nominate an internal coordinator to track the symposium calendar against overlapping commitments such as the RACI national congress or local grant submission windows.
| Criterion | Weighting | What panellists look for |
|---|---|---|
| Scientific novelty | 25% | Original mechanistic insight, new compounds, fresh interpretation of existing data |
| Methodological rigour | 25% | Adequate controls, replication, appropriate instrumentation |
| Visual clarity | 15% | Readable typography, logical flow, graphical accuracy |
| Oral discussion | 20% | Defensible answers, acknowledgement of limits, contextual awareness |
| Broader impact | 15% | Translational promise, reproducibility, alignment with applied bioinorganic priorities |
Submitting a poster to ISABC 2023 remains one of the most visible ways an Australian bioinorganic chemist can position novel findings before an international audience. Reviewers seek substance over spectacle, evidence over embellishment, and a coherent story anchored in reproducible practice. Begin with a clean abstract draft, refine the visuals through peer feedback, and rehearse the discussion until the central message feels inevitable.