Student Poster Competition Guidelines
General Instructions
- Poster Dimensions: 48” x 36” (maximum)
- Students should bring poster display boards and easel for display during the symposium.
- The poster may consist of images, illustrations, and photographs supplemented by charts, descriptive material, technical information/factors, etc. Emphasis should be placed on originality of the content, technical excellence, depth of topic, and practical application.
- The poster should relate to a specific content area: Research topic review/literature review, scientific process/original research, or case study.
- All presenters must print and bring their own poster.
- All posters should be set up by 8a.m. on September 17, 2026.
- Posters must be removed by 3:00pm on September 17, 2026.
- No specific template required; however, it is recommended that posters include:
- Title Banner – Including the title, author(s), and department(s). The entrant must be the first author listed.
- Introduction – Clear & concise statement of the hypothesis, & justification for the project, study objectives of the, and general approach.
- Materials and Methods – An outline of the key materials and methods defining how the experiment or study was conducted.
- Results – Tables, figures, photos, etc., showing and documenting experimental findings and analyses.
- Conclusions and Discussion – A statement of the conclusions from the study results and a brief explanation of the study’s scientific rigor, discoveries and their significance, and congruence (or lack of) with the body of scientific knowledge.
Contact info@digitwinglobal.com with any questions. Add “Student Poster” in subject line of email.
Submission Instructions
- For consideration, all students should submit (i) title of poster presentation, (iii) name and contact information of author(s), and (ii) a 250-word abstract of their poster presentation by July 20, 2026 to info@digitwinglobal.com. Include “Student Poster Abstract” in the subject line of the email.
- The review committee will evaluate submissions and select participants for the in-person poster session. Selected students will receive a registration code to attend and present at the Symposium. Please do not print the poster before you are accepted.
- The selected students will be notified by July 31, 2026
- Students should email the final electronic file of their poster by September 5, 2026 to info@digitwinglobal.com
- Students should also include a short biography (100 words) and a professional headshot with the electronic submission.
Deadlines
- Abstract submitted by: August 17, 2026
- Abstract acceptance notification by: August 21, 2026
- Student’s electronic file submission by: September 5, 2026
- Student poster display at symposium on: September 17, 2026
Student Prize and Scholarship
- Students participating in the poster presentation will have great networking opportunities with industry leaders.
- During the symposium, a diverse panel of industry leaders will judge the student posters. The top three finalists will be awarded scholarship funds in recognition of their outstanding work.
Suggested Topics / Themes
- Digital Twin Architecture
- Artificial Intelligence and Digital Twins
- Smart Cities and Urban Planning
- Application of Digital Twins
- Research in Digital Twins Implementation
- Cybersecurity & Data Privacy
- The Human-Twin Interface (AR/VR/XR)
- Smart Infrastructure
Judging Rubric
|
Score |
Research Question / Objective |
Methodology |
Results / Anticipated Results |
Discussion / Conclusion |
Overall Presentation and Q/A |
Poster / Powerpoint Presentation |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
1 |
The research question/objective was missing or was not supported with background information. |
There was no discussion of the study design or procedures. |
There was no discussion of the results/anticipated results. |
There was no discussion/ conclusion. |
The student spoke in unclear tones, and maintained little to no visual contact. |
The content is poorly laid out, and the text is difficult to read. |
|
2 |
The research question/objective was not clearly stated or was not directly related to the provided background information. |
There was some discussion of the study design or procedures. |
There was some discussion of the results/anticipated results. |
There was minimal discussion/conclusion. |
The student demonstrated poor knowledge of the project. |
The content provided is limited and does not improve understanding of the project. |
|
3 |
The research question/objective was clearly stated, but was not directly related to the provided background information. |
The study design or procedures were provided. However, it lacked key information to understand what was done. |
The results/anticipated results were discussed, but presentation of data was not clear. |
The discussion/conclusion was presented, with a little connection to the research question/objective. |
The student demonstrated some knowledge of the project, and responded well to some questions. |
Appropriate content was provided, but not organized well. |
|
4 |
The research question/objective was clearly stated, and was directly related to the provided background information. |
The study design or procedures were described clearly. |
There was a clear presentation of results/anticipated results. |
The discussion/conclusion was presented, with a clear connection to the research question/objective. |
The student was knowledge of the project, and answered most questions. |
The content was presented clearly, and approach labels to improve understanding. |
|
5 |
The research question/objective was clearly stated. It was directly related to the provided background information. and connections to previous literature and boarder issues were clear. |
The study design or procedures were described clearly, to include an appropriate rational for why the approach was selected. |
The results/anticipated results were substantial and sufficiently addresses the research question/objective. |
The discussion/conclusion was presented, and exhibits a level of significance to the discipline/broader audience. |
The student spoke naturally with enthusiasm, and strong knowledge of the project. Answered questions clearly. |
The content was clearly presented, and easy to follow in the absence of the presenter. |
Student Poster Competition Judges
Shreya Hegde
Shreya Hegde is a Sr. Product Manager Tech with Amazon RME, where she collaborates with AWS, Work Health Safety and the People Experience Teams. Starting her career as a software developer, her passion towards building scalable enterprise products led to a transition into product management. Over the past 17 years, Shreya has launched technical products for airlines industry, healthcare startups, revenue cycle management companies, and US government programs. Shreya is a staunch advocate of women in tech, and serves as a circle leader for the Lean In (Non- Profit) Circle in Austin.
