# How to design a fair conference abstract review workflow By EvolveEvents Editorial Team Published: 2026-10-27 | Updated: 2026-10-27 Canonical: https://getevolveevents.com/blog/conference-abstract-review-workflow A fair abstract review workflow publishes its criteria before submissions open, assigns each abstract to multiple reviewers who have declared conflicts, keeps submissions confidential, asks for scores with short constructive comments, sets a clear deadline, and records each decision with its reason so accepted work can move straight into the program. ## Key takeaways - Publish review criteria with the call so submitters and reviewers work from the same standard. - Collect conflict-of-interest declarations before assignments, not after scores arrive. - Treat submissions as confidential and say so in reviewer instructions. - Ask for brief constructive comments alongside scores to support consistent decisions. - COPE's peer-reviewer guidelines were written for research publication; adapt them, and do not present them as a conference certification. ## Why does abstract review need a defined workflow? Without a defined process, review often becomes a relay of spreadsheets and inboxes. Scores arrive in different formats, conflicts surface late, and decisions are hard to explain to submitters. A written workflow makes the committee's work repeatable and easier to defend. The stages below are editorial recommendations. Adjust them to your discipline, your committee size and any rules set by your society or accrediting body. ## What principles should reviewers follow? The Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) publishes ethical guidelines for peer reviewers of research publications. Among other points, they ask reviewers to provide objective and constructive reviews, keep manuscripts confidential, declare competing interests, and respond in a timely way. Conference abstracts are not journal manuscripts, so treat this as guidance adapted to a different setting. Following these principles does not certify your conference review process; it gives your committee a well-reasoned reference point. [COPE: Ethical guidelines for peer reviewers](https://publicationethics.org/guidance/guideline/ethical-guidelines-peer-reviewers) ## How should you set up the call for abstracts? Write the criteria reviewers will use and publish them with the call. Typical criteria include relevance to the track, clarity of method, significance and fit for the requested format, such as oral or poster. 1. Define tracks and the formats each accepts. 2. Publish scoring criteria and the score scale with the call. 3. Set word limits and required fields so abstracts are comparable. 4. State the submission deadline, review period and notification date. ## How should reviewers be assigned? Assign each abstract to more than one reviewer where your committee size allows, so a single opinion does not decide the outcome. Collect conflict declarations first, consistent with the COPE expectation that reviewers declare competing interests, and exclude conflicted reviewers from those assignments. 1. Ask reviewers for areas of expertise and known conflicts before assignment. 2. Balance workload so no reviewer receives an unrealistic number of abstracts. 3. Send written instructions covering criteria, confidentiality and the deadline. 4. Track completion and send reminders before, not after, the deadline. [COPE: Ethical guidelines for peer reviewers](https://publicationethics.org/guidance/guideline/ethical-guidelines-peer-reviewers) ## How do you turn scores into decisions? Scores inform decisions; they rarely make them alone. Have the committee review score spread, comments and program balance together. Look closely at abstracts where reviewers disagree strongly. Record every decision with a short reason and the assigned format. Accepted abstracts then become the raw material for agenda sessions, so the less re-keying between decision and schedule, the fewer errors reach the printed program. 1. Review averages alongside the range of scores. 2. Discuss abstracts with wide disagreement before deciding. 3. Record decision, format and reason for each submission. 4. Notify submitters on the published date with clear next steps. ## Frequently asked questions ### Should abstract review be blind? Many committees remove author names to reduce bias, but practice varies by field. Decide in advance, explain it in the call and apply it consistently. ### How many reviewers should score each abstract? More than one where possible. The right number depends on volume and committee size; the goal is that no single reviewer decides the outcome alone. ### What counts as a conflict of interest? Common examples include recent collaboration, shared institution, supervisory relationships or personal ties. Define your list in the reviewer instructions and ask reviewers to declare anything that could reasonably appear to affect their judgment. ### Does following COPE guidance certify our review process? No. COPE's peer-reviewer guidelines address research publication. Conference organizers can adapt the principles, but should not describe their process as COPE-certified or COPE-compliant on that basis. ### What should rejected submitters receive? At minimum, a timely and respectful decision. If your process collects constructive comments, consider sharing a summary to help authors improve future submissions. ## Sources - [COPE: Ethical guidelines for peer reviewers](https://publicationethics.org/guidance/guideline/ethical-guidelines-peer-reviewers) ## Related articles - [conference management software checklist](https://getevolveevents.com/blog/conference-management-software-checklist) - [qr code event check in checklist](https://getevolveevents.com/blog/qr-code-event-check-in-checklist) [Explore EvolveEvents features](https://getevolveevents.com/features)