Conference organizers across the globe share a common headache. The process of managing academic abstracts manually has transformed into an overwhelming burden that drains resources and threatens event quality. Every year, thousands of research conferences struggle with the same problem that refuses to go away.
A manual team of talented professionals can pull off some impressive feats. However, we have a question for you: Should these talented professionals really have to hustle themselves to the exhaustion of their capabilities?
Wouldn’t talented professionals be better off saving their energy from administrative tasks that a machine could simplify or even eliminate altogether?
So, why do event organizations still choose to put their employees through the burden of manual abstract management? When you’re managing abstracts by hand, the stack on your table just keeps growing larger and larger. And more overwhelming with passing days.
What the top managerial hierarchy does not understand is that manual abstract management is costing the organization plenty. It may not be immediately visible or even tangible, but when you see that your most talented employees are perpetually exhausted and are overcome by a loss of a sense of agency, organizations finally begin to pay attention. The hidden costs of abstract management are many. In this blog, we’re shedding light on all of them so you can make the right kind of choices for your next abstract management event.
The Real Price of Spreadsheet Dependency for Abstract Management
Many conference organizers are still relying almost entirely on Excel spreadsheets to keep track of their abstract submissions. You may ask, what is wrong with using a spreadsheet? It’s simple. It’s mobile-friendly and easy to use.
Well, the problem here is that using Excel spreadsheets is simple. Anyone could do it. But when event professionals are pushed to using it continually and for large-scale events, there are problems that compound over time. A single spreadsheet for a mid-sized conference will easily contain hundreds of rows and multiple columns, including things like author details, submission dates and review statuses and feedback notes. When you press one wrong key by mistake, you could corrupt data that took you weeks to compile.
Human error becomes quite inevitable when teams are manually entering information from email attachments. Version control is also another significant challenge. Herein, reviewers send feedback through separate email chains that someone must sit down to track manually. These technical limitations create bottlenecks that delay the entire conference timeline.
Communication Breakdown and Author Frustration in Manual Abstract Management
Authors who submit their research deserve timely updates about their submission status. Manual systems make this nearly impossible to deliver consistently. Conference staff must individually email hundreds of researchers with updates about review progress and acceptance decisions. This process alone can take days or even weeks, depending on the conference size.
Researchers often submit queries about their submission status that flood the inbox folders. Answering these questions pulls staff away from other critical tasks. The lack of a centralized communication system means authors cannot easily check their submission status independently. This creates unnecessary back-and-forth correspondence that frustrates everyone involved. Authors may perceive the conference as disorganized based solely on poor communication during the submission phase.
The Financial Implications of Manual Abstract Management
The true financial cost of manual abstract management often remains hidden until someone calculates the actual hours invested. Staff members who spend weeks managing submissions could be directing their skills toward marketing and speaker recruitment and sponsor relations instead. The opportunity cost of misallocated human resources impacts the conference’s bottom line in ways that budgets rarely capture.
Hiring temporary staff to handle submission peaks becomes necessary when existing teams cannot manage the workload. These additional salaries add unexpected expenses to conference budgets that already run tight. Training temporary workers on manual systems takes time away from permanent staff who could be performing higher-value activities. The efficiency losses compound when temporary team members make mistakes due to insufficient familiarity with complex tracking systems.
Software subscriptions for basic tools like shared spreadsheets and cloud storage and email management accumulate monthly charges. These tools provide only partial solutions that still require significant manual intervention. Organizations end up paying for multiple disconnected systems that do not communicate with each other. The lack of integration means data must be manually transferred between platforms, which creates more opportunities for errors.
Quality Control Suffers Under Manual Abstract Management
When staff members are overwhelmed with administrative tasks the quality of conference content inevitably suffers. Program committees cannot dedicate adequate time to thoughtfully reviewing abstracts if they are busy managing logistics. The intellectual work of evaluating research proposals deserves focused attention that manual systems make difficult to provide.
Inconsistencies in how abstracts get evaluated emerge when there’s a lack of standard processes. Different reviewers may receive different instructions or have access to varying amounts of background information. Creating fair evaluation criteria that all reviewers apply uniformly requires systematic implementation that manual methods cannot deliver. These inconsistencies can lead to deserving research being rejected while weaker submissions advance.
The final conference program reflects the care invested during the abstract review process. When organizational chaos dominates this phase, the resulting speaker lineup may lack the coherence and quality that attendees expect. Conferences compete for both presenters and participants in an increasingly crowded market. Those that demonstrate superior organizational capabilities attract better submissions and larger audiences.
Real Automation Results That Matter for Abstract Management
Organizations that make the switch from manual to automated abstract management save substantial time and effort that could be channeled into far more strategic and creative tasks for the event. Tasks that previously required weeks, with automation, can be completed in just a few days or even in hours. Staff members can, therefore, redirect their energy toward activities that genuinely improve the quality of the conference as opposed to being stuck up on minute details that only exhaust them.
When event organizations switch to automated abstract management:
-
- The satisfaction of authors improves measurably as researchers experience smooth submission processes. Professional communication and timely updates and transparent status tracking all contribute to positive impressions.
- Conferences build stronger reputations within their academic communities when they show organizational excellence. This reputation attracts higher quality submissions in subsequent years, creating a virtuous cycle of improvement.
- The financial benefits move beyond direct cost savings from reduced staff hours. Better organized conferences attract more participants and sponsors who value professional event management.
- Higher attendance generates increased revenue, whereas operational efficiency reduces expenses. This improved financial position lets conference organizers invest in better venues, speakers and attendee experiences.
Moving Forward With Automated Abstract Management
The challenges of manual abstract management have clear solutions available today. Conference organizers no longer need to accept inefficiency and frustration and quality compromises as unavoidable aspects of event planning. Technology has evolved to address these specific pain points with purpose-built tools that understand the unique needs of academic conferences.
Making the transition to automated abstract management systems requires initial investment and commitment. However, the long-term benefits far outweigh the short-term adjustment period. Staff members who experience relief from administrative burden become more engaged and productive. Authors and reviewers appreciate professional systems that respect their time and contributions. Conference quality improves across every aspect when organizational infrastructure supports rather than hinders the mission.
The world of academic conferences continues to grow more competitive each year. Events that embrace modern management tools position themselves for success in this environment. Those that cling to outdated manual methods risk falling behind competitors who deliver superior experiences. The choice between struggle and success often comes down to the systems that support conference operations behind the scenes.
Organizations ready to leave manual abstract management behind deserve solutions designed specifically for their needs. Dryfta provides comprehensive online event management capabilities that transform how conferences operate. The platform handles abstract submissions and peer review coordination and communication automation with ease. Conference organizers who switch to our platform discover what their events can become when technology removes administrative barriers. Learn how we can help your next conference run smoother than you imagined possible.