Abstract Submission Software: A Guide for Conference Organizers

Abstract submission software manages the call-for-papers (CFP) process for conferences: collecting submissions from authors, routing them to reviewers, tracking scores, and helping organizers build a program from accepted work. For most academic conferences and professional events, the abstract submission process runs months before the conference itself — and how well it runs directly affects program quality, author satisfaction, and organizing committee workload. This guide covers what to look for, how the major options compare, and how to set up a submission process that runs cleanly.

What Abstract Submission Software Does

A purpose-built abstract submission system handles four phases of the CFP lifecycle:

• Collection. Authors submit abstracts, full papers, or extended abstracts through a structured form. The system collects co-author information, topic categories, preferred presentation format (oral, poster, workshop), and any supplemental files. Authors receive a confirmation and a private link to check their submission status.
• Assignment. The program chair assigns submissions to reviewers based on topic expertise. Most systems handle conflicts of interest (a reviewer cannot review their own submission or work from their institution). Blind review hides author identities from reviewers.
• Review. Reviewers score submissions against the rubric — originality, relevance, quality, presentation — and submit written comments. The dashboard shows the program chair which submissions are fully reviewed, which are pending, and the score distribution.
• Decision and notification. The program chair accepts, rejects, or conditionally accepts submissions. Authors receive notifications with review feedback. Accepted submissions feed into the session schedule.

The Main Options

EasyChair — widely used, free for basic use

EasyChair is the most widely used abstract submission platform in academic computer science and engineering. Reviewers and authors are familiar with it, which reduces friction for established conference series. The basic tier is free with per-submission fees for larger conferences. The interface is functional but dated — reviewers will get it done, but the experience is not polished.

Best for: CS/engineering conferences where authors already have EasyChair accounts. Established annual conferences where process continuity matters more than modern UX.

Limitations: No native attendee registration or check-in. Once abstracts are accepted, you need a separate system for everything else. The interface looks like it was built in 2005 because it was.

Oxford Abstracts — purpose-built for academic conferences

Oxford Abstracts focuses specifically on abstract collection and review for academic conferences. It handles the submission and review workflow well, with clean author-facing interfaces and reviewer portals. Pricing is per-abstract-submission, which can add up for large conferences.

Best for: Humanities and social science conferences that want a modern submission interface. Medical and health science conferences.

Limitations: Like EasyChair, it does not handle registration. Two-system workflow required for the full conference.

Confex — full conference management including abstracts

Confex combines abstract management with attendee registration and scheduling. Used primarily by large professional associations (100,000+ member organizations). Handles complex program structures, exhibitor management, and multi-track scheduling. Enterprise pricing.

Best for: Large professional associations with 500+ paper submissions and complex scheduling requirements.

Limitations: Enterprise pricing and implementation timeline. Overkill for conferences under 300 submissions.

CompleteEvent — integrated with registration and scheduling

CompleteEvent integrates abstract submission with attendee registration, session scheduling, speaker portals, and check-in. For organizing committees that want one system rather than three, this is the main advantage. The CFP system handles blind review, custom rubrics, multi-reviewer assignment, and program building. Accepted submissions promote directly to the session schedule without manual data entry.

Best for: Conferences under 2,000 attendees that want to avoid the EasyChair-for-abstracts / Eventbrite-for-registration / Google-Sheets-for-scheduling stack. Particularly useful for conferences that do not have a dedicated conference management coordinator.

Limitations: Less name recognition than EasyChair in fields where reviewers expect a specific platform.

Setting Up Your Abstract Submission Form

The submission form is the first thing authors interact with. A poorly designed form frustrates authors and produces messy data. Design it before you open the CFP.

Required fields for most academic conferences:

• Title (word or character limit)
• Abstract body (word limit — 250 to 500 words is standard for abstracts, up to 2,000 for extended abstracts)
• Author name(s) and institutional affiliation(s)
• Primary contact email
• Topic category or track (dropdown from your conference's theme areas)
• Presentation format preference (oral presentation, poster, workshop, lightning talk)
• Keywords (3 to 5, for reviewer matching)

Optional fields depending on your conference:

• Full paper upload (if your review process is full-paper rather than abstract-only)
• Supplemental materials (video, dataset, code repository URL)
• Funding disclosure
• Conflict of interest statement
• Student paper designation (if you have a student paper award)
• Industry vs. academic author designation

Keep the form as short as the review process genuinely requires. Every optional field reduces completion rates. A 500-word abstract form with 12 fields produces lower-quality submissions than a focused form with 7 required fields.

Configuring Your Review Rubric

The review rubric determines what reviewers score and how the program chair compares submissions. A good rubric has 3 to 6 criteria, each with a clear definition, a numerical scale, and a weight.

Standard academic conference rubric:

• Relevance (1–5): Does the submission address the conference themes?
• Originality (1–5): Does it present novel findings, methods, or perspectives?
• Quality of evidence (1–5): Are claims supported by data, literature, or sound argument?
• Clarity (1–5): Is the submission clearly written and well-organized?
• Practical value (1–5): Will conference attendees find this useful or interesting?
• Overall recommendation (Accept / Conditional Accept / Reject)

Avoid rubrics with more than 6 criteria — reviewers start scoring mechanically when the rubric is long. The overall recommendation is more useful than a computed average when scores are close.

Managing the Review Process

The most common failure in abstract review is reviewer non-completion. Reviewers agree to review, then miss the deadline without notice. Build your timeline to account for this.

• Set the review deadline 3 to 4 weeks after submission close. Longer periods correlate with more missed deadlines, not better reviews.
• Assign 2 to 3 reviewers per submission. Two reviewers minimum allows tie-breaking. More than three rarely improves program quality and increases coordinator workload.
• Send a reminder 5 days before the deadline. One targeted reminder increases completion rates significantly. Do not send multiple reminders — it trains reviewers to wait for the final one.
• Handle conflicts of interest at assignment time, not after. Your submission form should collect institutional affiliation. Flag submissions from a reviewer's institution for manual reassignment.
• Check score variance before decisions. When two reviewers give a submission very different scores (e.g., 4.5 and 1.5 average), request a third review before deciding. Wide variance usually indicates a genuinely borderline paper or a reviewer misunderstanding the rubric.

From Accepted Submissions to Program

After acceptance decisions, three tasks remain before the program is ready:

1. Session assignment. Group accepted submissions into sessions by topic, format, or theme. Each session needs a chair. Oral presentation sessions typically have 3 to 5 papers. Poster sessions can be much larger. Workshop sessions need separate logistical coordination with their organizers.
2. Speaker confirmation. Not every accepted presenter confirms. Send acceptance notifications and require a confirmation response within 2 weeks. Papers without a confirmed presenter drop to the waitlist.
3. A/V and logistics collection. Each confirmed speaker needs to submit their presentation format (slides, demo, live coding), A/V requirements, and speaker bio. A speaker portal that collects this in one place is significantly less work than coordinating by email.

In a unified platform, accepted submissions link directly to the schedule — the title, abstract, and author information carry over automatically. In a two-system workflow, someone manually enters this data, which introduces errors and takes hours.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is the best free abstract submission software?

EasyChair's basic tier is free for smaller conferences and is the most widely used free option in academic CS and engineering. For conferences that also need attendee registration, CompleteEvent's free plan covers events up to 25 attendees with the full CFP workflow included. For larger conferences, both platforms have paid tiers.

How long should the abstract submission period be?

Six to ten weeks is standard for most academic conferences. Shorter periods produce fewer submissions; longer periods tend not to increase submission quality but do compress your review timeline. Many conferences see a surge of submissions in the final 48 hours — plan your team's workload accordingly.

How many reviewers should each abstract get?

Two to three reviewers per submission is standard. Two allows tie-breaking; three gives you a median score to work with. More than three creates coordination overhead without meaningfully improving decision quality. For borderline submissions, a third review is worth requesting when scores diverge significantly.

Should abstract review be blind or open?

Single-blind review (reviewers know authors, authors do not know reviewers) is most common in practice. Double-blind review (neither party knows the other) is increasingly standard in CS and social science conferences where there is concern about prestige bias. Your field's norm matters — if your community expects double-blind, use it. If not, single-blind is easier to administer and has lower risk of deanonymization.

What is the difference between an abstract submission and a paper submission?

Abstract-only submissions are reviewed on the 250 to 500-word abstract alone. Full-paper submissions include the complete manuscript (typically 4 to 15 pages) and are reviewed in full. Abstract-only review is lighter for authors and reviewers but gives reviewers less to work with. Full-paper review is standard in computer science and engineering; abstract-only is more common in humanities, social sciences, and medical conferences.

Set up your conference abstract submission with CompleteEvent — CFP, review, and scheduling in one platform.