Milestone map
Milestone map
3 milestones
Submit an abstract and receive acceptance
6–12 weeks (submission deadline to notification, programme-dependent)
Presenting at an academic conference begins with a peer-reviewed abstract submission. Choose a conference appropriate to your field and career stage (a doctoral or postgraduate-level subject conference, not a keynote-only event or industry gathering). Write an abstract (200–300 words, or per the conference guidelines) that states your research question, methodology, key findings, and contribution to the field. Submit to a conference with documented peer review of abstracts. Receive and retain your acceptance notification.
Proof required
Submit your abstract as submitted, the conference programme listing your name and paper title, and your acceptance notification email showing the conference name and date.
What gets checked
- Conference uses documented peer review for abstract selection — a conference that accepts all submissions is not peer-reviewed.
- Acceptance notification is from the conference organisers, not a generic registration confirmation.
- Abstract states a clear research contribution — 'I will discuss X' is not a contribution; 'This paper argues that X contradicts the dominant view because Y' is.
Common mistakes
- Submitting to a predatory conference (publishes any submission for a fee) — check whether the conference is indexed in a recognised directory or sponsored by a professional society in your field.
- Abstract that describes the topic without stating a finding — conference reviewers reject abstracts that promise to 'discuss' or 'explore' without committing to a claim.
- Submitting a paper that is not original work — presenting a summary of existing literature without an original analysis or contribution.
Resources
Foundationstart here
Depthgo deeper
What a verifier looks for
- Check that the conference is listed in a professional society or recognised academic index — ask the student to name the conference's organising body.
- Ask what the student's argument or finding was — 'I presented my research' is not sufficient.
- Ask whether the abstract was peer-reviewed and how many reviewers assessed it.
You'll sign in first, then come straight back here.
Prepare and rehearse the presentation
2–3 weeks
Prepare a 15–20 minute academic presentation (or per the conference format). The presentation must: open with a clear problem statement and contribution, describe the methodology, present key findings with appropriate evidence, and close with implications and limitations. Rehearse twice — once alone (timed) and once in front of at least one academic peer who can pose questions. Document the rehearsal peer's feedback and your specific revisions to the presentation based on it.
Proof required
Submit your slide deck (or equivalent), the name and affiliation of your rehearsal reviewer, the feedback they gave (written or your own notes taken immediately after), and a 1-paragraph account of what you changed as a result.
What gets checked
- Rehearsal reviewer is an academic peer — a friend who is not in your research field is not an academic peer for this purpose.
- Feedback is substantive — 'slides look good' is not feedback that warrants a slide deck revision.
- Timing is confirmed — the presentation fits within the conference time slot without rushing the questions slide.
Common mistakes
- Slide deck that reads as a written paper — academic slides should carry figures, diagrams, and key claims, not paragraphs.
- No rehearsal with live Q&A — conference Q&A is adversarial; unpractised presenters often cannot answer basic follow-up questions on their own findings.
- Revising slides cosmetically but not substantively — changing font colours without addressing the methodological concern the reviewer raised.
Resources
Foundationstart here
What a verifier looks for
- Ask what the rehearsal reviewer's most important criticism was.
- Ask the student to state their contribution in one sentence without looking at the slides.
- Check whether the slide deck carries figures and claims rather than paragraphs of text.
You'll sign in first, then come straight back here.
Present at the conference and document the Q&A
Conference day + 1 day for Q&A record
Deliver the presentation at the conference and document the Q&A session. The Q&A is the core adversarial test: academic audiences ask challenging, field-specific questions, and how you respond demonstrates command of the material beyond the rehearsed talk. Write a 1-page Q&A record immediately after the session: the three most challenging questions asked, how you answered each, and where your answer was satisfactory vs where you recognised a gap in your argument or knowledge. This is a learning document — honest gaps are expected and required.
Proof required
Submit your conference programme page showing your name and paper, a photo at the conference venue (or virtual equivalent), and your 1-page Q&A record.
What gets checked
- Q&A record documents specific questions — not 'the questions were interesting' but the actual questions asked.
- Q&A record is honest — if you could not answer a question, the record says so and explains what the question revealed about a gap.
- Conference programme is official — a screenshot of the conference website listing your name and paper title.
Common mistakes
- Q&A record written days after the conference from memory — write it immediately after the session when the questions are accurate.
- Q&A record that reports all questions as fully answered — genuine academic Q&A surfaces at least one challenging question.
- Programme photo of someone else's presentation — the submission must show your own name.
Resources
What a verifier looks for
- Ask the student to describe the hardest question they were asked and how they answered it.
- Check that the Q&A record names specific questions, not categories of questions.
- Ask whether the presentation generated follow-up interest from other attendees.
You'll sign in first, then come straight back here.
Part of