Communicating effectively is the single most vital component of an abstract review process that leads to success. When authors receive regular updates, clear directions, and accurate feedback, they can complete the submission and revision stages without any issues. Event organisers, in contrast, save themselves the trouble of confusion, get fewer follow-up questions, and keep a professional workflow going from the beginning to the end.
The abstract review process in academic conferences is what lays down the principles for program quality and the satisfaction of the attendees. However, a great number of event teams are still struggling with delays, missing messages, getting inconsistent feedback from reviewers, and having authors who are getting upset. The major part of these problems originates from unclear communications, rather than from the number of submissions.
Having a streamlined communication plan is beneficial for organizers to be able to keep their communication going consistently. This helps ensure that reviewers have what they need and also provides authors with the information at every step. It is about cutting down on the back-and-forth emails, getting rid of the manual tracking, and having a single flow of information that is open to everyone.
Establish a Clear Communication Structure
Don’t tell the same information in different personal inboxes or through different platforms.
If authors receive updates through a well-organized submission and review system, it is also very easy for the organizers to track the correspondence. Platforms with built-in messaging or notification automation ensure that messages aren’t lost and all data is in one place.
Decide first on the communication categories before publishing the call for abstracts. These usually comprise:
-
- Submission confirmation
- Reviewer assignment updates
- Corrections for required formatting or compliance
- Notification of review results
- Revision request
- Final acceptance or rejection
- Registration reminders for accepted authors
Communicating in advance about the types of messages assures that they will be uniform and that there is no confusion at the last minute.
Create Standardized Templates for Every Stage
Templates help in maintaining a consistent tone and lessen the probability of a misunderstanding. Every message has to be brief, focused on the next step, and correspond to the different stages of the abstract review process.
Authors need to be aware of the next step to take at all times. Some examples of the next steps are:
-
- When to upload a revised abstract
- Add the co-author details that are missing
- Fill in the copyright or ethics forms
- If accepted, register for the event
Helping clarify the instructions is a way of reducing follow-up inquiries and delays.
In order to keep the same level of professionalism throughout the entire team, it is advisable to have all the templates for the messages stored in one place. That is the way the newly recruited team members or volunteers can instantly get the same communication style.
Automate Notifications and Status Updates
Without depending on the help of team members, automation makes sure that every author gets timely status updates. For instance:
-
- Automated submission confirmation right after the file is uploaded
- Automated reminders for submission that is still incomplete
- Immediate notifications when the status of the abstract changes from “Under Review” to “Revision Required”
Automation results in predictable communication that authors can trust.
Authors must have the possibility to know the progress of their abstracts. A dedicated dashboard showing the statuses of “Submitted,” “Assigned to Reviewer,” “In Review,” “Reviewed,” “Revision Needed,” or “Accepted” would mean no more guessing.
Provide Clear Reviewer Guidelines to Reduce Conflicting Feedback
When the reviewers use different standards in their judgment, authors get contradictory messages. This leads to additional, unnecessary communication back and forth. Set standards like:
-
- Alignment with conference theme
- Innovativeness of the research
- Methodology description clarity
- Writing quality
- Research field advancement
Using the same criteria for all leads to the same level of feedback.
It is a short reviewer briefing, via a document or webinar, that makes the reviewers aware of the expectations. As a result, there are better comments, fewer author clarifications, and faster revisions.
Make Communication Timelines Visible and Predictable
Communicate a schedule which illustrates:
-
- When will submissions be accepted and closed
- Initial review period
- Approximate date of first decision
- Revision submission deadlines
- Final decision announcement
- Camera-ready submission date
Being able to see the timeline helps authors to have clarity without having to constantly ask organizers for updates.
On-time reminders help to keep the work going, and thus, there will be no waiting times. These reminders should be short and focused on the exact thing the author needs to do.
Offer Support Channels Without Overloading Your Team
An individual support email address makes it easy to keep the questions in order. You can tag the queries by categories, for example, technical issues, submission questions, reviewer comments, revision support, etc. This assists the event staff in maintaining the response time standards.
You can include an FAQ section to address some of the most common questions by reviewers and authors. You can include questions on:
-
- Submitting an abstract
- Requirements for the file format
- Revision and resubmission process
- Reviewer anonymity explanation
- How acceptance decisions are communicated
Make FAQs available to everyone through the event website or submission portal.
Use a Revision Management System That Tracks Changes
Mix-ups between different file versions arise from email attachments and make it difficult to trace the changes made. Using a submission portal that keeps replacing the old versions with the updated files is a way of refreshing and making sure that the reviewers see the correct drafts.
Firstly, authors must provide:
-
- Explanation of how the paper has been changed in response to the reviewer comments
- A summary of the changes made
- Explanation clarifying that if the suggested changes were not implemented
It is very helpful in cutting down on the demand for further explanations, and thus, the abstract review process can continue in a timely manner.
Maintain Professional Tone and Language
Don’t use ambiguous language. Provide factual, straightforward information. In addition to ensuring trustworthiness, this lowers the chances of being misunderstood.
Complex language in academic writing might lead to confusion for authors who are inexperienced and foreign contributors. If one uses a simple and well-organized language, then it is quite understandable by anyone, irrespective of their group of authors.
Conduct a Final Communication Check Before Acceptance Announcement
Before dispatching your conclusive decisions:
-
- Check that the reviewer’s feedback is physically attached or logically included
- Verify that the author names and their respective affiliations are accurate
- Ensure that each author gets the decision email that is right for him/her
Such a practice stops mistakes that create confusion or require corrections.
Accepted authors must be the recipients of clear and simple directives concerning:
-
- Registration
- Presentation format
- Submission of the final paper or poster
- On-site requirements
At this final stage, clear orientation ensures authors have the information they need, and it reduces last-minute questions.
Evaluate Communication After the Event
Questions to authors:
-
- How clear was the message?
- Was the communication timely?
- Was it easy to track the status of the submission?
- How difficult was the revision?
Their feedback makes the workflow of the following year more efficient.
Prepare:
-
- Response times
- Number of clarification emails received
- Reviewer delays caused by a lack of understanding of the instructions
- Stages where the communication was interrupted
Use the results to make changes to how you approach communication after the event is over.
Final Thoughts
Coordinating one’s communication in a structured manner is definitely a less tumultuous and more anticipated abstract review experience for both authors and organizers. Here is a shorter version using the same words and meaning as closely as possible: Consequently, by consolidating communication, using templates, specifying timeframes, and reducing manual work through automation, event teams avoid confusion and improve the overall experience of contributors.
Moreover, clear and consistent communication is indicative of the highest standards of professionalism. It makes the work of reviewers more efficient, and, thus, contributes to the credibility of the conference or academic event.
If you desire to have a well-orchestrated submission and review workflow, then the adoption of a centralized conference management platform is the way out. This will make every stage of author communication a breeze, and the abstract review process will be efficient.
To streamline your entire abstract review process with automated communication, structured workflows, and centralized author management, use Dryfta’s all-in-one conference platform. Request a free demo from Dryfta to see how it can simplify submissions, reviews, and author coordination for your next event.