How to Set Abstract Submission Criteria for Conferences

Abstract submission criteria have a funny way of deciding the fate of a conference long before the first reviewer logs in. In 2026, with more researchers submitting from more places than ever, those few lines of rules shape which ideas get seen, which voices get heard, and which conversations end up on the program. If the criteria are clear and well-designed, the entire process will feel grounded from the first submission to the last session.

In this blog, we look at how to set abstract submission criteria that actually support the kind of conference you wish to host. 

Define the Purpose of Your Conference 

One major factor needs to be settled before inviting anyone to submit an abstract or open a call for papers. 

That is, what kind of conference this is meant to be.

For instance, some conferences are built around exploratory research where researchers can submit their half-baked ideas and preliminary findings to encourage discussion. Others lean toward applied work, where attendees expect to see how their research will evolve into tools and policies.

Then, there are events that mostly focus on teaching. They focus on pedagogy, learning design, and classroom practice, rather than academic research. Plenty of modern conferences these days are a mix of academia and industry, and many events are becoming early-career friendly. 

Therefore, it is best to define the abstract submission criteria based on the conference’s purpose, not the other way around.

Core Criteria Every Conference Should Set

Now that you have identified the purpose of your conference, the following are the decision-making factors as to which abstracts will be selected for consideration and which will end up in the rejection pile. 

• • Topic fit: Topic fit is about whether or not a submission is appropriate for a particular conference and has nothing to do with the quality of the research itself. A brilliant paper on marine biology does not belong in a digital humanities event, even if it is award-winning work.  
  • Research stage: Not all conferences want the same kind of work. Some focus on early-stage research ideas, while some conferences expect results that are already tested and ready to stand on their own. The research stage tells people how advanced the work should be. A pilot study, a mid-point project update, or a finished paper can all be acceptable, but not for the same audience.
  • Clarity of Methodology: This is less about the complex techniques and more about whether a presenter can describe exactly what he/she did in conducting the research. Which means, the abstract needs to clearly detail how the research was carried out, so that reviewers have some idea as to how conclusions were made.
  • Relevance to both academics and practitioners: The last factor is: does this work matter to anyone attending the conference? There are some academic conferences that focus on theory, some that focus on real world impact, and many fall somewhere in between. The criterion asks whether an abstract provides a good enough reason for people to care.

Ultimately, once all five abstract submission criteria have been defined and understood, the review process becomes far less chaotic. All parties will know what falls under each category and why.

How Detailed Should Your Abstract Submission Criteria Be?

Setting abstract submission criteria is about being straightforward without accidentally narrowing down who can submit.

When the criteria are too vague, you’ll end up receiving all kinds of submissions. 

• • A half-finished idea
  • A fully complete and ready-to-be-published journal paper
  • Submissions that just barely relate to the theme
  • Abstracts that relate perfectly to your themes but do not follow your formatting rules

None of them is wrong if there weren’t any guidelines on what a quality submission should look like.

On the other side of the spectrum, rules that read like a legal contract can shut people out. When the criteria demand an exact methodology, a fixed number of participants, and a perfectly defined framework, all forms of innovative research will be filtered out.

Early-career researchers, interdisciplinary projects, and new approaches are often the first to disappear when the abstract submission criteria feel over-formalized.

What to state in your criteria:

• • Describe the topic in no more than two lines and clearly state what is included within the scope of the conference.
  • Specify what strong methods look like in your field, with an emphasis on the design, data sources, limitations of your study, and what has been done.
  • Mention the research stage you consider by stating whether you would like early findings, pilot results, full studies, or works-in-progress.
  • State that the submission must either pose a new question, use a new dataset, take a new approach, or utilize a new context.
  • Keep word limits reasonable and explain why they exist by linking them to scan-friendly review and uniform program display.
  • Explain what criteria matter the most when evaluating the submissions. 
  • You can provide sample examples of what “good enough” means for each of these evaluation criteria.

Make Criteria Fair Across Career Levels

People at different career stages do not enter a submission system with the same advantages. When you assume they do, you create an unfair playing field right from the beginning.

A well-defined research question, a viable methodology, and a simple explanation of why the work is important all provide you with more information than a list of prior journals. This is especially true for graduate students, independent scholars, and researchers from smaller institutions.

With fair criteria in place, new perspectives appear more frequently. Also, emerging study areas receive fair consideration. Sessions become less predictable as well. 

Align Criteria With Review Forms

Whatever you ask authors to submit should map exactly to what reviewers are scoring. That way, your reviewers can judge based on what is expected, and authors do not have to guess at all what you are looking for when they prepare a submission.

Here is the clean way to think about it.

Author prompt: Topic fit.
Reviewer check: How well does the paper match the theme of the conference?

Author prompt: Research stage.
Reviewer check: Does the submission match the stage requested? 

Author prompt: Clarity of the methods used.
Reviewer check: Is the approach clearly described enough to evaluate?

Author prompt: Originality of the contributions.
Reviewer check: Does it introduce something new (an idea, result, method, perspective)

Author prompt: Practical or academic relevance.
Reviewer check: Will it matter to the audience who attends the conference?

In addition, make sure you use consistent language. If you name it “methodology” in the submission form, do not call it “research design” in the review form unless you want people to interpret it differently. 

Finally, avoid asking authors to provide information that you cannot score in any way. For example, if you allow authors to upload a long abstract, but ask reviewers for a single overall rating, you will end up with shallow data.

Using Abstract Submission Criteria to Reduce Reviewer Bias

All submissions receive the exact same scrutiny in terms of topic fit, clarity, and value when the reviewer rates them on a common scale. A thoughtful early-career idea gets evaluated by the same criteria as a well-written advanced research paper.

Anchored questions take that one step further. Instead of asking, “Is this abstract good?” the review form asks, “Is the research question clear, and does the method match the goal?”

Better yet, when specific criteria guide reviewers during evaluation, they slow down enough to recognize what the submission states and supports. It ultimately leads to more programs that can represent the full spectrum of ideas.

Common Mistakes to Avoid in Abstract Submission Criteria

• • Using overly academic language that sounds impressive, yet gives the writer little clarity as to exactly what they expect.
  • Designing abstract submission criteria using past conference practices instead of focusing on what this specific event needs.
  • Creating submission guidelines that favor the writer’s reputation over the merits of the idea itself. 
  • Leaving out practical guidance so that reviewers will have their own interpretation of what each rule means.
  • Adding strict format rules that matter less than the quality of the work.
  • Ignoring the fact that not all well-written submissions will follow a traditional academic structure.

How to Communicate Criteria to Authors

1. Label what is required vs optional

• • Required fields should match what reviewers score
  • Optional fields should stay limited and helpful

2. Explain each criterion in one plain line

• • Explain what “Topic Fit” means for this particular conference
  • Specify what “method clarity” requires at the abstract stage
  • Avoid academic wording that makes people reread

3. Specify the expected level of detail

• • Add a short example sentence for key fields
  • Mention the typical length required

4. Add quick guardrails that prevent common errors

• • Be clear about the word limits at the beginning
  • Mention what not to include
  • State which stages of research are acceptable

5. Offer help

• • Add FAQ under the criteria section
  • Add a single point of contact for authors

6. End with a simple checklist within the form

• • Confirm topic fit, stage of research, method clarity, and relevance.
  • Give authors a final opportunity to correct themselves.

A Quick Checklist

Content and structure

• • Title: Concise and descriptive, often 100-200 characters
  • Language style: Plain language, no jargon, no citations if the rules require it
  • Keywords: 3-5 relevant keywords

Formatting and length

• • Word or character limit: 250-500 words or 1,000-2,000 characters
  • Font: Times New Roman or Arial
  • Font size: 11 or 12 pt
  • Spacing and alignment: Line spacing and alignment rules has to be stated clearly

Submission details

• • Authors and affiliations: Full names, institutions, contact details
  • File format: Accepted types such as .docx or .pdf
  • Attachments: Size limits for tables and figures, if allowed
  • Language: Required submission language stated

Logistics

• • Deadline: Final date and time with time zone
  • Confirmation: Confirmation email sent after successful submission

Planning a Successful Conference in 2026

What should “a strong abstract” mean for your conference this year? That question answers itself the moment you set clear and thoughtful submission criteria. 

When the rules are well-framed, everyone will have a thorough understanding of what makes their submission stand out and why it does so. 

With Dryfta’s abstract management and review software, you can manage the full submission and review flow in one place, set deadlines for collecting abstracts, limit the number of co-authors per submission, control intake based on submission type, set abstract status to accept/reject and notify authors and co-authors, and much more.

If you would like to see how this works in a real setup, schedule a personalized demo with Dryfta TODAY!