Puntuación de abstracts

Overview

Abstract scoring gives your program committee a structured way to evaluate CFP submissions. Multiple reviewers score each abstract on weighted criteria — relevance, originality, presentation quality, or any custom dimensions you define. A ranked overview with aggregate scores makes it easy to finalize your program. Available on Pro plans (requires CFP to be enabled).

Setting Up Scoring Criteria

1. Go to Program → Abstract Scoring → Criteria in your event dashboard.
2. Four default criteria are pre-populated: Relevance to Theme (weight 1.5×), Originality (1.0×), Practical Value (1.0×), and Presentation Quality (0.5×). Edit or delete these as needed.
3. To add a criterion, enter a label, weight, and maximum score (default 5), then click Add criterion.
4. Adjust weights to reflect how important each dimension is. A criterion with weight 2.0 counts twice as much as one with weight 1.0 in the overall weighted average.

Scoring Abstracts

1. Go to Program → Abstract Scoring. The overview table shows all submitted abstracts with their current average scores, reviewer count, and recommendation breakdown.
2. Click Score this → on any abstract to open the scoring page.
3. Use the sliders to score each criterion from 1 to the maximum. Add an optional note and select a recommendation: Accept, Maybe, or Reject.
4. Click Submit scores. After submitting, you can see the aggregate scores from all other reviewers (reviewer names are anonymized).

Any org member with at least a Staff role can score abstracts. Scores are saved per reviewer — you can update your scores at any time before the program is finalized.

Reading the Scoring Overview

The overview table is sorted by weighted average score (highest first) by default. Columns show:

• Abstract title and author
• Track (if assigned)
• Per-criterion average across all reviewers
• Overall weighted average score
• Number of reviewers who have scored it
• Recommendation breakdown (how many Accept / Maybe / Reject votes)
• Current status (Pending / Accepted / Rejected)

Click any column header to sort. Use this view to identify clear accepts at the top, clear rejects at the bottom, and borderline submissions in the middle.

Blind Review and Conflicts of Interest

Turn on blind review to hide submitter names and affiliations from reviewers, so they score the work rather than the author. Reviewer identities stay anonymous to submitters as well.

Reviewers can flag a conflict of interest on any abstract they should not judge — a co-author, a colleague, their own institution. Conflicted reviewers are kept out of that abstract's scores, so a personal connection never inflates or depresses a result. Set up the review pool and assignments on the Reviewers page.

Score Normalization

Reviewers score differently — some run harsh, some generous. Score normalization adjusts for that so an abstract is not penalized simply for drawing a strict reviewer. The overview can rank by the normalized score next to the raw weighted average; use the normalized ranking when different reviewers scored different subsets of abstracts and you need them on a level footing.

Accepting Abstracts in Bulk

Once scoring is complete, use bulk decisions to accept or reject many abstracts at once — for example, accept everything above a score threshold — in a single action. You can still accept or reject individual abstracts manually from the overview or the abstract detail page.

Reviewer Anonymity

Scores are shown anonymized to other reviewers — you can see that "3 of 5 reviewers scored Originality 4/5" but not who gave which score. Org owners and admins can see all scores with reviewer names in the admin view.

See Sessions and Speaker Submissions for submission types, poster logistics, ORCID and structured affiliations, register-to-present, and the abstract book export.