Rejection is one of the most uncomfortable parts of life. Nobody enjoys the feeling of knowing they were not good enough for something. Particularly for abstract submitters and research scholars who have previously had their work rejected, this is a pain that hits close to home.
While the event manager can do little about abstract rejection itself, what the management can do is make sure that this rejection reaches individuals in honorable ways.
In other words, whenever you are turning someone down, making them feel acknowledged, respected and worthy of their work is of paramount importance.
Abstract rejection is an area wherein communication consistently falls short of where it ought to be. Rejections are conveyed in ways that treat submitters like algorithms or worse, projections are sometimes not initiated at all. If one didn’t make it to the list, one must assume that they have been rejected.
However, what the larger event management industry is forgetting is that this individual has invested real time, intellect and, more often than not, a considerable measure of personal pride in their submission. How you choose to respond to this investment in the event of an abstract rejection will determine how they regard your organization for years to come.
Where Most Organizations Go Wrong
Before looking at how to do this well, it helps to understand where the process tends to break down. The mistakes are common enough that most people in academic and professional circles have encountered them on the receiving end.
-
- Generic content: Most frequent failure is the generic template that reads as though it was drafted by a committee and reviewed by no one. These are the letters that open with something along the lines of ‘We regret to inform you that your abstract submission was not successful on this occasion’ and conclude with nothing that actually helps the writer understand why. They are technically polite in the narrowest sense of the word, but functionally offer the recipient nothing at all.
- Failing to meet deadlines: Excessive delay also compounds the problem considerably. Share the rejection message promptly. When people wait months for a response only to eventually receive a letter, the rejection itself, along with the neglect, feels more disheartening. The natural question that follows, whether the review committee read the submission at all, is one you do not want your recipients asking.
- Non-helpful feedback: Vague feedback disguised as specific feedback is another pattern worth recognizing and actively avoiding. Telling someone their abstract ‘lacked clarity’ or ‘did not meet our quality standards’ without elaboration is not feedback in any meaningful sense.
The Principles That Make the Difference in Abstract Rejection
If the submission did not align with the theme of the conference, say so clearly. In case the panel felt the methodology needed further development, mention it in plain terms.
If you received three times as many submissions as you could accommodate and the selection process was largely competitive, be honest about that, too.
Specificity, more than anything else, signals respect. Being prompt matters more than most organizations appreciate. If circumstances delay the process, sending a brief update to applicants costs very little and communicates a great deal about how you value people’s time. Silence, it is worth remembering, is itself a form of communication and it is rarely a kind one.
Separating the work from the person is a distinction that a rejection letter should always take care to make. The decision was about fit, scope or the competitiveness of the field, not about the individual’s worth as a researcher or professional. A line that makes this explicit, one that clarifies the decision does not reflect on the quality of their thinking or their research, is not empty comfort.
It is a necessary clarification that many organizations skip over entirely and that recipients genuinely need to hear. It also allows the person to direct their energy somewhere constructive next, which changes the emotional experience of rejection from a dead end into a redirection.
Through all of this, maintaining a human tone is not optional. Rejection letters do not need to read like administrative documents. A warm and direct voice goes a long way, and it is entirely possible to be professional and still sound like a person who composed the letter. Because one did.
Structuring the Abstract Rejection Letter Itself
A well-structured abstract rejection letter does not need to be long or elaborate to be effective. It covers four things in a natural sequence and trusts the reader to handle directness.
It opens with a clear statement of the decision, without burying the news under several paragraphs of preamble or extensive praise. People are capable of receiving a clear answer and, more often than not, they actually prefer it to being led around before being told. It then provides a brief but honest reason for the outcome. Even a sentence or two is considerably better than nothing.
If you welcome future submissions, say it out loud. If this does not apply to your event, the most honest thing you can do is simply send a straightforward expression of thanks for the person’s time and effort.
Managing Abstract Rejection at Scale
For large conferences and academic journals, abstract rejection is not a one-off communication but a process managed across hundreds or sometimes thousands of submissions. This creates genuine challenges because you cannot write a fully personalized letter for every individual at that volume. So how do you protect goodwill when you are working at scale?
The answer lies in building tiered communication systems that are thoughtful at every level. For the majority of rejections, a well-written standard template that includes genuine information about the selection process, honest language about the competitiveness of the field and a clear reason for the outcome will serve most recipients far better than a cold, deflective letter. The template itself deserves care and it should be written seriously, reviewed by senior members of the team and revisited each cycle in light of any feedback received from past applicants.
The Bottom Line
Organizations with a reputation for poor rejection practices suffer for it in ways that are quiet but cumulative. Talented contributors route their best work to platforms they trust. Word travels through professional networks. The quality of submissions declines over time, not because the field itself has changed but because the most capable people have quietly stopped trying.
Managing abstract rejection well is not a minor administrative function to be delegated without thought. It is a core part of how your organization communicates its standards and its regard for the professional community it serves. The care and attention you bring to saying no is proof of how seriously you take the people who said yes to submitting their work to you in the first place. The mechanics of good abstract rejection are not complicated: be prompt, be specific, be human, and be honest.