A scientific event in 2026 will either stand tall or fall short on the basis of a number of different factors. However, of utmost importance and central to the very ethos of science and research itself is the abstract review process. When one organizes a scientific event, the reviewers you select become an inextricable part of your academic standards.
These reviewers are the individuals who will now determine your program’s intellectual value. Their decisions are what will decide which of your research findings reach your audience and which do not. They hold the power to steer scientists from the backgrounds that we do not always overtly recognize. Reviewers’ work is often covert but tangible later on.
Owing to this, the responsibility of choosing the right reviewers for your scientific event is one an event organization must treat seriously.
Selecting a poor reviewer can undermine years of your reputation and corrode trust within your research community. In this blog, we’re running you down all the things you need to do to identify and onboard the right reviewers for your next event.
First Things First, Know What Reviewers Actually Do
Reviewers fulfill multiple functions and take on roles that move beyond just simple acceptance or rejection decisions.
-
- Reviewers evaluate submitted abstracts and papers against established academic standards.
- They assess methodological soundness and the originality of research contributions.
- The collective judgment of peer reviewers nudges the program committees toward building balanced and intellectually stimulating event schedules.
The best reviewers are those who uphold the high standards of your scientific event without being asked to, explicitly. This is because, for the right reviewers, whether experienced or new, at the very core of their work is also fairness and inquiry. They intend to help bring out the best possible findings and conversations to the table. Independent of the nature of the event, honest reviewers give their all, and without the need to dismiss any unconventional approach.
They simply choose what works best for them and treat work as creative, changing, and innovative. They want to help people challenge existing paradigms with their research and hence leave some detailed and constructive comments that help authors and organizing committees understand their strengths and weaknesses.
Reviewers show you your lack, so you level up and return. Or they give your research a leg up in the event. Once you understand these multifaceted responsibilities that reviewers hold, you’ll begin to see the right people with knowledge and judgment.
Cross-Matching Reviewer Expertise with Research Topics
Your first task involves creating a comprehensive map of the knowledge domains that your event will cover. Here is an outline on how this can be done, step-by-step:
-
- Start out by closely analyzing your call for papers and then breaking down the research areas into specific topics and methodological approaches. This taxonomy becomes your textbook for identifying potential reviewers whose expertise matches that of likely submissions.
- Be on the lookout for researchers who have published actively in these areas during the last 5 years, because recent work indicates current knowledge and familiarity with ongoing debates in the field. Academic databases and journal editorial boards provide excellent starting points in this regard. Conference proceedings from similar events also often help figure out who the active contributors are in specific subfields.
- You need to strike a balance with specialists having broader perspectives in your reviewer pool. Some submissions demand evaluators with years of expertise in narrow technical areas. Most others benefit from reviewers who can assess interdisciplinary work or research more broadly. Striking this balance means that you have to think carefully about the full range of submissions you expect to receive and then build a reviewer roster with a corresponding diversity of knowledge.
- After mapping out the expertise you need, the next question becomes whether you have to prioritize seasoned veterans or include some upcoming scholars and fresh faces in your selection process.
Weighing Experience Against Fresh Perspectives
Veteran reviewers bring procedural knowledge and calibrated judgment that comes from evaluating hundreds of submissions over the years. These individuals understand how to write constructive feedback, and they complete their assignments reliably because they have integrated review work into their professional routines. Seek out people who serve on editorial boards or who have participated in program committees for respected conferences in your field.
However, early-career researchers bring with them some advantages that experienced reviewers sometimes lack. Assistant professors and even advanced doctoral candidates often have more time to dedicate to thorough reviews, and they bring recent methodological training that keeps them current. Their fresh perspectives can identify innovative work that more established scholars might overlook because it deviates from familiar patterns. You can mentor less experienced reviewers by providing detailed guidelines and examples of high-quality reviews.
Commit to the Most Committed Reviewers
The most qualified expert turns virtually useless if he or she cannot meet your deadlines or if they disappear halfway through the review period for whatever reason.
When you contact potential reviewers, offer specific information about time requirements and firm deadlines. Tell them how many submissions they should expect to receive and describe the level of detail you expect in their evaluations. This transparency allows people to make informed decisions about whether they can realistically fulfill the commitment.
Request explicit confirmation rather than interpreting silence as agreement. Ask potential reviewers to respond within a specific timeframe with a clear yes or no answer about their availability. This direct approach prevents misunderstandings and helps you gauge whether you need to expand your recruitment efforts. Beyond availability, you must also consider whether potential reviewers have relationships with authors that could compromise their objectivity.
Preventing Conflicts of Interest Between Reviewers
Scientific integrity depends on objective evaluation free from personal or professional entanglements that could bias judgment. You must establish clear policies defining what constitutes a conflict and communicate these policies to everyone involved in the review process. Recent co-authorship with submitting authors represents an obvious conflict, as do current or recent institutional affiliations that create loyalty pressures.
Advisor-advisee relationships can persist for years after formal mentoring ends, and close personal friendships compromise objectivity even when professional relationships remain distant.
Building a Diverse Reviewer Panel
Homogeneous review panels introduce blind spots that can systematically disadvantage certain types of research or researchers. You should actively recruit reviewers across multiple dimensions, including geographic location and institutional type as well as career stage and methodological tradition. Geographic diversity proves particularly valuable for international events because reviewers from different regions understand varied research contexts and recognize work that carries regional significance even without global visibility.
Giving Reviewers Good Thought
The reviewers you choose shape almost every other aspect of your scientific event and, most importantly, its quality and reputation. Reviewers’ collective expertise determines which ideas receive public airing, and their feedback influences how researchers across your field develop their work. Investing time and care in reviewer selection pays dividends in program quality and attendee satisfaction.
Managing the demands of the peer review process takes considerable time and effort. However, it should not suck all your time and energy as an event organizer. Dryfta, a purpose-built and comprehensive event management software, offers a platform that will handle every aspect of the review workflow for you. It will help find the right reviewers for you and later help coordinate their work. Visit dryfta.com today to schedule a demo, completely free of cost.