Powerful, Enterprise-Grade Event Management Software
Sell tickets & Collect registration fees online
Full-Service Abstract Management Software: Collect ➩ Assign ➩ Review ➩ Decide ➩ Notify
Customizable forms to collect & review abstracts, symposia, proposals & grants
The Complete Event Schedule Builder to Create Virtual & Hybrid Sessions
Create Event Schedule with Slides, Group Chats, Survey forms & more
Engagement Tools to Host Virtual Conferences & Online Community Website
Engage attendees & Produce knowledge with online networking portal
The double-blind review is a process that is used in academic conferences. In this style of review process, the identities of the author and the reviewer are hidden. If the author’s identity is not visible to the reviewer, it helps to prevent the reviewer from creating any partiality or bias.
The peer review process is the backbone of academic conferences for crucial discernment of submitted abstracts and digital content. They ensure that only reliable, robust, useful research gets delivered to the scientific community. A well-designed peer review system is crucial for balancing and streamlining the entire process. It offers fairness, efficiency, and better results without compromising on quality.
Several things have changed, done and undone itself in the academic event management space over the years. As a matter of fact, the industry itself has changed in some fundamental ways. Thanks to the advent of technology such as Artificial Intelligence(AI) and data analytics, which have since taken the world by storm. However, even through the changes, abstracts are perhaps one of the few elements that have stood the test of time and remain relevant still. Continue reading
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.
If you’re a researcher, you’ve probably submitted abstracts to conferences and wondered how the selection process works. More importantly, you might have questioned, at some point in your journey, if the system is truly fair.
An abstract review process is incomplete without effective communication of the review outcomes. When you communicate review outcomes with clarity and purpose, you show respect to your audience and strengthen your goals. If you do it poorly, that leads to confusion and frustration among the applicants. Continue reading
The academic conferences run on abstracts. These are brief proposals that determine who speaks, what gets discussed, and which research reaches the broader community. When the system for managing them breaks down, everything else falls apart. Deadlines get missed, and even the most potent submissions slip through review cracks.
The world of academic peer review and abstract submissions can sometimes be overwhelming. Fortunately, a number of websites have been developed that assist with these processes and help researchers and scholars communicate their work more easily. The right platform will transform your experience, making navigation a breeze and the whole process easy. Continue reading
If you’ve been part of academic conferences for a while, you know that managing submissions and reviews can get complex. The peer review component is one of the most important parts of successfully hosting an academic conference. Authors submit their abstracts to be reviewed; reviewers read, score, and share comments for each submission. If the workflow is organized, all parties stay on track. However, when the workflow is disorganized, the entire review process becomes slow and stressful for authors, reviewers, and organizers alike.
Reviewers are the most important factor, without whom any large conference cannot work. They read, assess, and score the hundreds of submissions that come in. But as the number of submissions grows, so does the problem. Reviewer fatigue affects them deeply. Reviewers feel drained, lose focus, and become less consistent in their evaluations. Any conference organizer must take care of this fatigue to maintain quality, fairness, and reviewer satisfaction. Continue reading
Communicating effectively is the 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.
In the context of the academic and research ecosystem, the process of abstract review becomes the foundation of discourse in events. Abstract blind reviews come in many different types. These different forms of reviews serve different goals, and in certain situations, the level of transparency comes into play.