Call for Papers Mistakes That Reduces Abstract Submissions

 

Many academic teams still struggle with writing a call for papers(CFP) that is easy to act on. Many create CFPs that include too much information, while others create CFPs that don’t include enough. Some leave out key dates for the event or fail to state its primary purpose clearly. These small mistakes reduce trust and cause fewer submissions, even when the event itself is solid.

A good call for papers focuses on clarity. Authors need to understand several things about the event, such as who is supposed to submit? What does the theme mean? How do the abstract submission guidelines work? When these points are easily understandable, authors feel more confident. They will gain clarity on what to submit, how to prepare, and where their paper fits into the event’s overall plan.

This blog explains the common mistakes you should avoid when writing your call for papers. Each mistake is simple to fix, and each correction helps your event attract stronger submissions. 

What Does Call for Papers Mean?

A call for papers provides authors with an understanding of what the academic event is about. It outlines the event’s main goals and explains the kind of work the team wants to receive. 

When the CFP is clearly defined, the author can make a decision on whether their research meets the criteria of the event. They can also use it to determine whether the deadlines, themes, and review process meet their requirements. The clearer the message, the easier it becomes for researchers to prepare strong submissions. 

A well-written CFP also allows organizers to reach more people, as it is easy to read and share. With both parties having a clear understanding of the submission process, the submission flow remains smooth, and the quality of the research presented at the event is boosted.

A clear CFP usually covers:

• • Main theme and focus of the event
  • Who the event is built for
  • How authors must prepare their files
  • Word and page limits
  • Format rules and style needs
  • Deadlines for each stage
  • How the review will work
  • What happens after acceptance
  • Contact details for support

1. Vague Submission Guidelines

Calls for papers fail because the submission rules are vague. Authors do not wish to guess what the event expects from them. When the details stay vague, they worry their paper will not meet the event’s expectations. Therefore, authors are unsure about the length of the submission, the required format, and the submission deadline.

These uncertainties can lead to a dip in submissions. In some cases, authors may skip an event altogether if the potential risk seems too great. Studies on academic writing behavior show that clear rules improve submission confidence and reduce the fear of rejection among early researchers. 

Events with unclear guidelines lose strong work because people do not want to waste time on a submission that might not meet hidden rules. A call for papers must clearly state each step if it wants a wide reach and strong trust.

Here is how you guide authors with confidence:

• • Use one simple structure for all rules
  • Share the exact format details, including word limit, style, and layout
  • State the review timeline in a direct way
  • Add a brief point confirming who can submit
  • Give authors one help page with examples of strong submissions

2: Missing Deadlines or Key Dates

Many calls for papers lose quality submissions when the deadlines or key dates are unclear. Oftentimes, an author expects certainty to schedule their time and effort so they can stay organized. They adjust their research, writing, and peer-review schedules based on the event timeline.

When a call for papers does not state deadlines directly, authors will delay submitting their work. Research groups often work with strict internal timelines. Departments require firm dates to budget for travel, organize peer reviews, and allocate resources in advance. Missing or unclear dates interrupt that flow.

On top of that, first-time researchers rely heavily on firm deadlines to produce high-quality work. They may avoid events that make planning difficult.

What you should do instead:

• • List all key dates in one place
  • State the submission deadline clearly
  • Add the review period and decision date
  • Share the camera-ready deadline if the event uses one
  • Add a small reminder on the event page that dates will not shift

3. Unclear Review Criteria

Calls for papers fall short because the review criteria are either vague or not described clearly enough. Authors want to know how their work will be evaluated. They rely on simple signals that show what the reviewers value the most. When those signals are missing, authors send fewer submissions. Some might even skip the event because they fear their work will not match the hidden expectations.

Events with unclear review criteria can also risk uneven evaluations. Reviewers may judge papers using their own set of criteria, which can confuse authors when they receive feedback. Clear review criteria, with no doubt, can help authors, support reviewers, and improve the overall quality of accepted work.

Here is how you set fair and transparent review expectations:

• • Share the exact points reviewers will evaluate
  • Break each point into simple language that matches your field
  • State whether you value novelty, practical use, or strong data
  • Tell authors if writing quality affects the score
  • Provide one sample abstract that matches the event’s standard

4. Weak Event Theme Explanation

Too many calls for papers go unanswered due to unclear event themes. Before writing, authors prefer a theme that gives them a clear objective and amplifies their writing and research. When the theme is ambiguous or hard to figure out, authors cannot see how their work relates to the event.

A vague theme also undermines the event’s credibility. Authors may consider the event to lack a clear focus and, therefore, believe the review committee will randomly assign papers based on unclear criteria rather than the stated theme. When the theme is defined, authors can quickly see what the organizers care about and what questions they should explore to add value.

In addition, clearly defined themes benefit reviewers, as everyone reviews the same type of message, which keeps the process steady and fair.

To present a theme clearly and with impact:

• • Use one short line that explains the event’s main idea
  • Add a few focus areas that support the line
  • Show how the theme links to current issues in the field
  • State what type of research the event hopes to highlight
  • Add one example that shows the scope without limiting creativity

5. No Word Count or Format Rules

When an author is left to guess the basic structure of their paper, things get messy. A missing word limit forces authors to plan without a boundary. Therefore, some end up writing long drafts that take hours to review, while others keep it short, hoping the event accepts it. Because of this, reviewers have to put in different levels of effort, as each paper comes in a different length or format.

Some authors write using block text while others adhere to strict academic standards. A few may place tables or figures in unusual spots. Reviewers then have to spend more time understanding the layout than focusing on the core ideas.

Rules that make the process steady:

• • Set a clear word range
  • Define layout needs
  • State what sections must appear
  • Give a sample file for reference

6. Lack of Contact Information

Some authors have difficulty trusting the CFP process when they are unable to find an appropriate person for help when needed. They often choose to look for clarification on specific issues or want to confirm something. If there isn’t a contact point listed in the CFP, they just take an educated guess. Guesswork results in errors. It may also discourage some authors from participating in the event.

Missing contact details create stress for reviewers as well. Reviewers receive papers with avoidable mistakes because authors did not know who to ask. This slows down the work and increases mix-ups across the team that handles the submissions.

How to offer a simple contact point:

• • Add one visible email address on the CFP page
  • Place a short help link near the submission rules
  • Provide a single contact point for technical issues
  • Include one line that explains who handles queries

7. Overly Complex Language

Authors do not want to decode long phrases or heavy academic terms before they even start writing. Complex wording slows them down and creates doubt about what the event expects. Some authors may misunderstand the rules and send papers in the wrong style. Others may skip the event because the CFP feels too difficult to follow. 

However, simple, everyday language helps authors quickly understand what the event is looking for in the submission. The clarity of the CFP will also eliminate questions for the organizer, allowing authors to focus on submitting strong work rather than spending additional time seeking clarification.

Here is how you keep your language simple and direct:

• • Use short sentences that explain one idea at a time
  • Choose standard terms that everyone can understand
  • Replace long phrases with short and clear wording
  • Remove extra adjectives that do not add value
  • Add brief examples only when needed
  • Review the full CFP once to check for heavy or unclear terms

Wrapping Up

A strong call for papers depends on clear rules, simple writing, and steady guidance at every step. Authors will be much more confident when they are certain about what you expect, how the submissions are reviewed, and who to contact if they have questions along the way. Each detail shapes how many authors submit, how they prepare their manuscripts, and ultimately their perception of your event. If an event has removed ambiguity from the process, then the entire submission flow will become seamless for all parties involved.

Dryfta offers event management tools that help teams manage abstract submissions in one place and organize event tasks through a unified dashboard. These features support a smoother call for papers process by keeping details structured and seamless to review. With Dryfta, it becomes easy to ensure all details are clearly communicated so that your call for papers will be visible to the right audience.