Powerful, Enterprise-Grade Event Management Software
Sell tickets & Collect registration fees online
Full-Service Abstract Management Software: Collect âž© Assign âž© Review âž© Decide âž© 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
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
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.
Every conference depends on a fair review system. While reviewers do their best to be objective, small biases still slip in and influence the ultimate decision about whether to accept the abstract. A simple word, a known name, or a familiar topic can shift how a reviewer scores an abstract. Such instances might feel harmless, yet they build up and change who gets accepted.