From Poster to Publication: The Conversion Checklist for Students

You are standing in front of your poster at a regional medical conference. People actually stopped. They asked questions. One faculty member said, “This would make a nice paper.”

On the flight home, you open your laptop and stare at your poster PDF. You know you should turn this into a manuscript. You also know that if you do not act in the next few weeks, this project will quietly die like a dozen other student posters.

You need a concrete, stepwise protocol: how to go from poster to publication without getting lost, overwhelmed, or ghosted by your co-authors.

That is what this checklist is for.

---

(See also: How to Rescue a Stalled Research Project Before It Dies for more guidance.)

Step 1: Lock Down Your Team and Authorship Early

The biggest source of frustration for students is not methods or statistics. It is unclear expectations and authorship drama. Fix that first.

1.1 Identify a committed “manuscript mentor”

You likely had:

• A primary research mentor (PI)
• A resident or fellow who helped with data
• Maybe a statistician

You need one person who will actively help drive the manuscript to completion. Often:

• Clinical research: a resident/fellow or junior faculty member
• Bench research: postdoc or senior grad student

Action steps (within 1 week of the conference):

1. Send a concise email:

   • Thank them for supporting the poster.
   • State explicitly: “I would like to convert this poster into a manuscript for submission to a peer-reviewed journal.”
   • Ask: “Would you be willing to mentor me through the manuscript-writing and submission process if I take the lead on drafting?”

2. If your main PI is very busy:

   • Ask: “Is there a resident, fellow, or postdoc in the group who could co-mentor me on the writing process?”

You want one person who will answer emails and give edits in a reasonable time frame.

1.2 Clarify authorship and responsibilities up front

Do not wait until after the draft is written.

Schedule a brief meeting (15–20 minutes) with your mentor and key contributors. Use a simple structure:

• Open with:

  • “I want to make sure everyone’s contributions are fairly acknowledged and expectations are clear for the manuscript.”

• Ask explicitly:

  • “Who should be included as authors on the manuscript?”
  • “Who will be first author? Who will be corresponding author?”
  • “How will order of authorship be decided?”

Several common models:

• Student first author if:

  • You are writing the first full draft.
  • You are managing revisions.
  • You may present future talks about the project.

• Resident/fellow first author sometimes if:

  • They did the bulk of the work/data collection.
  • You joined late for analysis/poster only.

If you are not first author, ask:

• “What role can I take to make sure I have a meaningful authorship position?”
• “What tasks should I be responsible for (e.g., drafting methods, results, tables)?”

Document the understanding in writing. A follow-up email like:

“To summarize our discussion: I will draft the manuscript and serve as first author. Dr. X will be senior and corresponding author. Y and Z will be co-authors based on their roles in data collection and analysis…”

This email becomes your reference if confusion appears later.

---

Step 2: Choose the Right Target Journal Before You Write

Most students write a manuscript, then try to find a journal. That leads to major formatting changes and wasted time. Reverse it.

2.1 Define your paper type and realistic impact

Ask your mentor:

• “What type of journal do you think is appropriate for this work?”
• “What kind of paper do you envision? Original research? Brief report? Case series? Education research?”

Then be brutally honest about:

• Sample size (is it 30 patients or 3,000?)
• Study design (retrospective chart review vs. prospective RCT)
• Topic scope (niche specialty vs. broad clinical impact)

You are not aiming for NEJM with a single-center retrospective chart review of 50 patients.

Target:

• Specialty-specific journals
• Regional journals
• Education journals (for curriculum or teaching projects)
• Student-focused journals (if appropriate)

2.2 Use a quick screening checklist for journals

Look at 3–5 candidate journals and check:

• Do they publish your type of study?
  • Search their archives for similar topics or designs.
• Is your sample size in line with what they publish?
• Do they accept student authors? (Most do; some student-run journals are even designed for you.)
• Are the instructions for authors clear and feasible?

Ask your mentor to prioritize 2 journals:

• Primary target (ideal but realistic)
• Backup target (slightly lower-impact, more likely to accept)

Then download:

• “Instructions for Authors”
• A recent example paper similar to yours

You will structure your manuscript to match these exactly.

---

Step 3: Convert the Poster into a Manuscript Skeleton

Your poster already has a structure. Use it. But do not simply paste poster text into Word and call it a paper.

You need to build a proper IMRaD structure:

• Introduction
• Methods
• Results
• Discussion
• (Conclusion if journal requires)

3.1 Export everything from your poster

Gather all source materials:

• Original data files (Excel, REDCap, SPSS, R, etc.)
• Abstract submission
• Poster PDF
• Figures and tables used
• Any analysis scripts or code

Create a project folder:

• /Manuscript_Draft/01_Manuscript_Text
• /Manuscript_Draft/02_Figures_Tables
• /Manuscript_Draft/03_Data_And_Code
• /Manuscript_Draft/04_References

You want everything organized before you start.

3.2 Build a manuscript outline in a Word or Google Doc

Use headings:

1. Title (temporary, working title is fine)
2. Abstract (leave blank for now, or paste poster abstract as a placeholder)
3. Introduction
4. Methods
   • Study design
   • Setting and participants
   • Data collection
   • Outcomes and variables
   • Statistical analysis
5. Results
   • Sample characteristics
   • Main outcome(s)
   • Secondary analyses
6. Discussion
   • Summary of main findings
   • Comparison to prior literature
   • Strengths
   • Limitations
   • Future directions / implications
7. Conclusion (if required)
8. References
9. Tables and Figures (each on its own page at the end)

Paste relevant poster text into the matching sections as rough starting points, then rewrite to be more detailed and formal.

---

Step 4: Expand Each Section Systematically

Now you move from bullet points (poster) to full narrative (manuscript). Do not try to “just write the paper” in one sitting. Work section by section.

4.1 Methods first: the easiest section

The methods should describe exactly how the study was done so someone could replicate it.

Checklist for Methods:

• Study design:
  • “We conducted a retrospective cohort study…”
  • “We performed a cross-sectional survey…”
• Study setting:
  • Hospital name, clinic type, academic vs. community.
• Inclusion and exclusion criteria.
• Data sources:
  • EMR, survey platform, lab database, registry, etc.
• Variables:
  • Primary outcome(s).
  • Key independent variables.
  • How each was defined and measured.
• Statistical methods:
  • Tests used (t-test, chi-square, logistic regression, etc.)
  • Software (R, Stata, SPSS, SAS, etc.)
  • Significance threshold (e.g., p < 0.05).

Use your poster’s methods as a skeleton, then:

• Add specific dates (e.g., “January 2019 to December 2021”).
• Clarify sample size decisions.
• State IRB approval or exemption number.

Ask your mentor or statistician to review Methods early to catch any missing details.

4.2 Results: convert visuals to text plus tables

Your poster likely has:

• 1–3 figures
• 1–2 tables
• Bullets summarizing key findings

Turn that into a structured Results section.

Approach:

1. Start with participant flow:

   • Total eligible, excluded, final N.
   • A simple flow diagram if appropriate.

2. Describe baseline characteristics:

   • Age, gender, key clinical variables.
   • Usually Table 1.

3. Move to primary outcome(s):

   • Describe differences between groups.
   • Provide actual numbers, percentages, and p-values.

4. Then report secondary analyses:

   • Subgroup analyses.
   • Sensitivity analyses (if any).

Be explicit. For example:

“Among 124 patients included, 68 (54.8%) were male, and the mean age was 62.4 ± 11.2 years. Patients in the intervention group had a significantly shorter length of stay compared with controls (3.1 ± 1.2 vs 4.5 ± 1.7 days, p = 0.002).”

Use your poster tables but ensure they:

• Match journal formatting (e.g., no vertical lines).
• Include clear titles and footnotes.

Avoid overinterpreting in Results. Just report the findings.

4.3 Introduction: narrow funnel, not a textbook chapter

Your poster Introduction is usually only a few sentences. For the manuscript:

Target: 3–5 paragraphs, 0.5–1 page.

Structure:

1. Broad problem:
   • 2–3 sentences setting clinical or educational context.
2. Specific gap in knowledge:
   • 2–3 sentences.
   • Cite key recent papers.
3. Your study aim:
   • Clear, specific.
   • Usually one sentence.
4. Optional hypothesis:
   • If you had one prospectively.

Example:

“Hospital readmissions for heart failure impose a substantial clinical and economic burden. Despite numerous interventions, 30-day readmission rates remain high, and few studies have examined the role of structured discharge teaching in community hospitals. Prior work has largely focused on large academic centers with robust multidisciplinary teams, limiting generalizability to smaller institutions.

We aimed to evaluate the impact of a standardized nurse-led discharge education protocol on 30-day readmission rates among heart failure patients at a mid-sized community hospital. We hypothesized that the intervention would be associated with a clinically meaningful reduction in unplanned readmissions.”

Use 8–15 references. Pull them with:

• PubMed
• Google Scholar
• Reference lists from similar articles

Track citations with a tool (Zotero, EndNote, Mendeley) from the start.

4.4 Discussion: where student manuscripts often fail

Most student discussions are either:

• Too short and vague, or
• Too long and unfocused

Target: 4–7 paragraphs.

Structure:

1. Opening paragraph – Key findings in one or two sentences

   • “In this single-center retrospective cohort study, we found that…”

2. Compare with prior literature

   • How do your results match or differ from key studies?
   • Offer possible reasons for differences.

3. Interpretation and implications

   • What do these findings suggest for:
     • Clinical practice?
     • Education/curriculum design?
     • Future research?

4. Strengths and limitations

   • Be honest and specific.
   • Limitations: sample size, single-center, retrospective, missing data.
   • Strengths: novel setting, robust follow-up, real-world data.

5. Future directions / conclusion

   • How should others build on this?
   • One or two sentences of take-home message.

Do not:

• Re-report all numerical results.
• Make claims your data cannot support (“This intervention should be standard of care…”).

Do:

• Use cautious language: “may”, “suggests”, “supports the hypothesis that…”.

---

Step 5: Tighten Formatting, References, and Ethics

At this point you have a complete draft. Now you make it submission-ready.

5.1 Match journal formatting exactly

Open the target journal’s “Instructions for Authors” and create a mini-checklist:

• Word count (main text, abstract)
• Structured vs. unstructured abstract
• Maximum number of:
  • Figures
  • Tables
  • References
• Required sections:
  • Keywords
  • Funding disclosure
  • Conflict of interest statement
  • Acknowledgments
  • Author contributions

Adjust:

• Headings and subheadings.
• Reference style (Vancouver, AMA, APA, etc.).
• Figure and table legends.

This is tedious but signals professionalism. Reviewers see sloppiness as a negative bias even before reading your data.

5.2 Verify IRB/ethics and prior presentation policies

Key issues:

• Do you have IRB approval or exemption?
  • Confirm with your mentor and record the protocol number in the Methods.
• Did the conference where you presented have any publication embargos?
  • They rarely block publication, but confirm.

Most journals allow (and expect) that work has been presented as a poster:

• Add to Acknowledgments:
  • “Portions of this work were presented at the [Conference Name], [City], [Month Year].”

If patient privacy is involved:

• Remove any potentially identifying information in:
  • Images
  • Case descriptions
• Confirm data is de-identified.

5.3 Clean up references the smart way

Use a reference manager. Basic protocol:

1. Create a reference library for this project.
2. Import citations from PubMed/Google Scholar.
3. Insert citations into your manuscript using the plugin.
4. Set the output style to the journal’s required format.

Before submission:

• Scan references for:
  • Correct journal abbreviations.
  • Correct year, volume, pages.
  • Consistent formatting.

---

Step 6: Manage Co-author Feedback Without Losing Momentum

This is where many student projects stall. You send the draft, and everyone vanishes.

You need a clear feedback protocol.

6.1 Set expectations before sending the draft

Email to all authors:

• Attach:
  • Manuscript draft (Word)
  • Figures and tables
• Include:
  • Target journal name
  • A requested deadline (2–3 weeks is reasonable)

Example text:

“Dear all,

Attached is the first complete draft of our manuscript intended for submission to [Journal Name]. I would be very grateful for any comments or suggested revisions.

To keep the project on track, could you please send your feedback by [specific date, ~2–3 weeks]? If I do not hear from you by then, I will assume you have no major concerns and are comfortable with me proceeding with submission in coordination with Dr. [Senior Author].

Thank you again for your guidance and support.”

This creates a clear timeline and reduces indefinite delays.

6.2 Consolidate feedback efficiently

When comments start coming in:

• Use “Track Changes” in Word.
• Create a single “master” version where you:
  • Accept straightforward edits (grammar, small wording).
  • Highlight areas with conflicting suggestions.
• For major conflicts, ask your mentor:
  • “Dr. X suggested adding more methods details on Y, while Dr. Z prefers a shorter methods section. What do you recommend?”

Be decisive and keep the manuscript moving. Your role as first author is to:

• Integrate feedback.
• Maintain coherence.
• Keep to the target journal requirements.

6.3 Final approval and authorship confirmation

Before submission:

• Send the near-final version to all authors for “final sign-off.”
• Ask explicitly:
  • “Please confirm that you have reviewed the current version and approve being listed as a co-author.”

This protects you and respects authorship ethics.

---

Step 7: Submit, Respond to Reviewers, and Persist

You are not done after clicking “Submit.” But you are much closer to a CV line that actually matters for medical school or residency.

7.1 Prepare the submission packet

Typical components:

• Manuscript file (blinded if journal uses double-blind review)
• Cover letter
• Title page (with author names and affiliations)
• Figures (often as separate high-resolution files)
• Tables (sometimes in the manuscript, sometimes separate)
• Conflict of interest and funding forms

7.2 Write a concise, professional cover letter

Template you can adapt:

Dear [Editor’s Name],

Please find attached our manuscript entitled “[Title],” which we submit for consideration as an [Article Type] in [Journal Name].

This study [one-sentence summary of what you did] and demonstrates that [one-sentence key finding]. To our knowledge, this is the first study to [state novelty or unique contribution].

We believe these findings will be of interest to readers of [Journal Name] because [brief justification aligned with the journal’s scope]. The work has not been published previously and is not under consideration elsewhere. Portions of this study were presented as a poster at [Conference, Year].

All authors have approved the final version of the manuscript and agree with its submission to [Journal Name].

Sincerely,
[Your Name], on behalf of all authors
[Institution and contact information]

7.3 Handle reviewer comments like a system, not a personal attack

When you receive a decision (often “Major” or “Minor” revisions):

1. Read the decision letter once.
2. Wait a few hours if you feel defensive.
3. Meet with your mentor to review comments.

Create a “Response to Reviewers” document:

• Copy each comment verbatim.
• Below each comment, write:
  • Response: “We thank the reviewer for this helpful suggestion. We have now [describe change]…”
  • Quote the revised text and indicate the location (page/line).

If you disagree with a suggestion:

• Respond respectfully:
  • “We appreciate this comment. We considered [suggestion], but we are concerned that… For this reason, we have [alternative solution] and clarified this in the Discussion (page X, lines Y–Z).”

Set a target turnaround:

• For minor revisions: 1–2 weeks.
• For major revisions: 3–4 weeks with mentor guidance.

7.4 Treat rejection as a redirect, not an endpoint

If your manuscript is rejected:

• Do not abandon it.
• Ask your mentor:
  • “Which journal should we target next?”
• Adapt:
  • Reformat according to new journal’s instructions.
  • Address any valid reviewer critiques before resubmitting.
• Resubmit within 2–4 weeks.

Most published papers have at least one rejection somewhere in their history. Your goal is persistence with iterative improvement.

---

Building a Sustainable Poster-to-Publication Habit as a Student

You are early in your career. Turning one poster into a paper is valuable. Turning every project into a publication builds a reputation.

Practical habits to develop now

• Before starting a project, ask:
  • “What will the eventual manuscript look like?”
• Maintain a running document:
  • Study protocol
  • Planned tables and figures
  • Key references
• Keep data analysis scripts and code annotated as if someone else will read them later.
• Set calendar reminders:
  • Post-conference: “Start manuscript draft” within 7 days.
  • Monthly: “Check on manuscript status” until published.

Residency and fellowship directors notice patterns. A student with multiple posters and no publications often signals “starts things but does not finish.” Your goal is to signal the opposite.

---

FAQs

1. How early in a project should I start thinking about publication?

From the beginning. When you first discuss a research idea with a mentor, ask:

• “If this project goes well, what kind of paper do you envision, and which journals might be appropriate?”

This shapes:

• Study design
• Data collection rigor
• Sample size considerations

It is much easier to write a strong paper from a project designed with publication in mind than to force a weak retrospective project into manuscript form later.

2. Can I publish the same data in multiple papers?

Only under specific, ethically handled circumstances. You cannot “salami slice” a small dataset into multiple trivial papers just to pad your CV. However:

• A large project can legitimately generate:
  • One primary outcomes paper.
  • A secondary analysis paper (e.g., focused on a specific subgroup) if:
    • There is a distinct, meaningful research question.
    • You are transparent about prior publications using the same dataset.
• Always discuss with your mentor and follow journal policies.

When in doubt, aim for one solid, integrated paper instead of several weaker ones.

3. What if my poster project has a very small sample size?

Small sample size does not automatically kill publication potential, but it changes your target:

• Consider:
  • Brief reports
  • Case series
  • Educational innovations in teaching journals
• Be honest in limitations about underpowering.
• Focus on:
  • Novelty
  • Unique setting or population
  • Hypothesis-generating nature of the findings

Discuss with your mentor whether the work is worth submitting; sometimes the educational value for you (learning the process) justifies submitting a modest study.

4. How many publications do I need as a premed or medical student?

There is no magic number. Committees care more about:

• Depth and ownership:
  • Being first author on even 1–2 solid papers shows real engagement.
• Consistency:
  • A pattern of starting and finishing projects.
• Relevance:
  • Work aligned with your stated interests (e.g., surgical research for a surgery applicant).

As a premed, even 1 publication can be impactful. As a medical student, 1–3 well-executed papers (especially with first authorship) can significantly strengthen residency applications.

---

Open the PDF of your last poster right now. Create a new document titled “[ProjectName]_Manuscript_FirstDraft.docx” and paste in section headings for Introduction, Methods, Results, and Discussion. Then schedule a 20‑minute meeting with your mentor this week to confirm authorship and target journal. Starting that document today is the single most important move to turn this project from wall poster to PubMed line.