Organizing a multi-disciplinary event sounds like the most exciting thing in the world initially. The excitement begins to wither as event professionals hit the abstract collection phase. Abruptly, you find yourself drowning in submissions coming in from physicists who use heavy jargon, sociologists who are presenting complex data in patchy paragraphs and artists who are quite literally ‘abstract’ in their submissions.
The challenge is real. When you bring together people from medicine, technology, humanities and arts under one roof, you’re asking them to squeeze their life’s work into a box. But there are ways to make this process smoother for everyone involved.
But collecting abstracts for multi-disciplinary events doesn’t have to feel like herding cats. If you are an event organizer who is struggling to make sense of submissions from completely different fields, we hear you. In this blog, we’re running you through a few simple yet effective strategies.
Understanding Why Multi-Disciplinary Abstract Collection Gets Messy
Let’s begin with the obvious problem: different fields have completely different ideas about what an abstract should look like. A biologist expects to see things like methodology, results and conclusions. Someone turning in an abstract based on a piece of literature gravitates toward presenting a compelling thesis. An engineer hopes to show off their technical expertise and specifications. And a performance artist might want to submit a video to back their work.
Therefore, the confusion and the chaos begin right when an attendee sits with the submission form tab open. As an event planner, you may have created fields that make perfect sense for one discipline. However, in practice, they might just leave another individual scratching their head.
‘Research methodology’ means something very specific to a social scientist but might be completely irrelevant to a mathematician working on pure theory. ‘Expected outcomes’ is common for experimental sciences, but sounds odd to someone who is analyzing historical texts.
Then there’s the review process. How do you fairly evaluate an abstract about quantum computing alongside one about postcolonial literature? The criteria that make a strong abstract in one field might not even apply to another. And if your reviewers only understand their own discipline, you’re setting everyone up for frustration.
Start With a Flexible Submission System
The first step to simplifying abstract collection is accepting that one size does not fit all. Forget about forcing everyone through the same narrow pipeline. Your submission system needs to be flexible.
Here is all you can do to make your next multidisciplinary conferences a little less perplexing and a lot more diverse:
-
- Create a basic core of required information that works across all disciplines. Title, author information, discipline or track selection and a main abstract text. These are universal and everyone can provide these regardless of whether they’re talking about machine learning or a Renaissance painting.
- But this is the point where you add what we term ‘flexibility’. You can set up optional fields that different disciplines can use should they need them. Allow people to include methodology sections if it’s relevant to their field. Give them space for keywords, references, and technical specifications.
- The keyword is optional. Don’t make the physicist fill out ‘artistic medium’ and don’t make the sculptor specify their ‘sample size.’
Some events have started employing and experimenting with what is called a ‘modular approach’. After selecting their discipline or track, applicants see fields relevant to their area. Scientists see sections for hypotheses and methods. Humanities scholars see space for theoretical frameworks. Artists get options to upload portfolios or video links. Everyone gets what they need without wading through irrelevant questions.
Write Clear Guidelines That Actually Assist
As a multidisciplinary event planner, do you know what absolutely does not help your attendees?
It is often generic instructions that read like a map. ‘Submit an abstract describing your work.’ Such a direction offers almost nothing for the viewer.
Rather, make it a point to write specific guidelines for each track and discipline you’re hosting. Yes, this takes much more time upfront. But it saves you from receiving dozens of abstracts that don’t contain the information you actually need.
Scientific tracks: Spell out exactly what you want to see. Background, objectives, methods, results, and conclusions. Give them a structure to follow. Tell them if you want preliminary data or if proposals for future work are acceptable.
Humanities and social sciences: Explain that you’re looking for the research question, theoretical approach, sources or data and the argument or findings. Make it clear whether literature reviews are welcome or if you only want original research.
Creative or practice-based submissions: Describe what evidence of the work you need.
Can they submit portfolio links?Â
Do you want documentation of past performances?Â
Should they describe the concept, the execution or both?
And here’s something most organizers forget: provide examples. Show people what a strong abstract looks like in each discipline. One good example is worth a thousand words of instruction. Reach out to past presenters or create sample abstracts yourself. When people can see what you’re looking for, they’re far more likely to give it to you.
Build a Multidisciplinary Review System That Makes Sense
Reviewing abstracts from multiple disciplines requires a different approach than traditional peer review. You can’t just assign every abstract to three random reviewers and hope for the best.
Create discipline-specific review panels. Group your reviewers by expertise area. Let the biologists review biology abstracts, historians review history abstracts and so on. This seems obvious but you’d be surprised how many events skip this step.
But here’s where it gets interesting. For truly interdisciplinary abstract submissions that don’t fit neatly into one box, have a separate review panel of people who understand multiple fields. They can evaluate work that closes in on the gap between disciplines.
Develop different evaluation criteria for different tracks. Scientists might be evaluated on methodological efficiency and contribution to knowledge. Artists might be judged on originality and conceptual strength. Social scientists might need clear theoretical framing and social relevance. Create rubrics that make sense for each area.
Train your reviewers. Many academics are used to reviewing within their own field. They might not realize how different the standards are elsewhere. A brief orientation session or written guidelines can help reviewers understand what to look for in abstract submissions outside their comfort zone.
Handle Special Multidisciplinary Cases Without Losing Your Mind
Some abstract submissions won’t fit your carefully designed system. That’s fine. Work in a way that you find it easier to handle exceptions.
Create a general or ‘other’ category for work that truly spans multiple disciplines or doesn’t fit existing tracks. Make sure this category has reviewers who can handle diverse abstract submissions.
Allow applicants to contact you with questions. Provide an email address for the organizing committee. Some people will need clarification. Some will have unique situations. Being accessible prevents confusion and shows you’re responsive.
Consider offering abstract mentoring or consultation sessions before the deadline. Some institutions hosting multi-disciplinary events hold office hours where potential applicants can discuss their abstracts with organizers. This helps catch problems early and improves the quality of abstract submissions.
Learn and Improve for The Next Multi-Disciplinary Event
After your event, take time to evaluate the abstract collection process. Survey your applicants. Ask them about their experience with the submission system.
What worked for you?
What frustrated you?
Where did you get the most questions or confusion?
Was it intuitive?
Were the guidelines helpful?
What would you change?
You’ll get honest feedback that helps you improve next year.
Also, review your own administrative experience.
Which parts of the process took too much time?
Where did bottlenecks occur?
What would make your life easier next time?
Look at the quality of the abstracts you received:
-
- Did certain disciplines submit stronger abstracts than others? That might indicate your guidelines need adjustment in specific areas.
- Did you get submissions that didn’t fit any category? Maybe you need to add or modify tracks.
Document everything and create a reference guide for yourself with notes about what worked, what didn’t and what you’d do differently. Future you will be grateful when you’re organizing the next event.
The Real Goal Of Abstract Management in Multi-Disciplinary Events
As you attempt to simplify abstract collections and make sense of the multi-disciplinary event, it is important to acknowledge the fact that the physicists and the poets might never agree on what makes a good abstract. But they can both work through a submission system that understands their needs. Your job is building that system and making the process as painless as possible for everyone involved.
At the end of the day, you want to bring together the best work from multiple fields. And that starts with making it easy for people to submit their ideas in the first place.
No more wrestling with clunky portals or fielding confused emails at midnight in 2026, Dryfta’s purpose-built abstract management system is here for your rescue. Over the years, we’ve worked incredibly hard to build an abstract collection system that works for everyone involved. Because your time is better spent planning an amazing event than segregating abstracts from quantum physicists and medieval historians.