Conference organizers today watch submission numbers the way investors track the prices of their shares in the stock market. Similarly, when abstract submission numbers drop by double digits, panic sets in for conference planners. On the other hand, when they do climb, there is perhaps no better feeling in the world.
In order to know what separates a conference that attracts hundreds of quality abstracts from one that scrapes by with minimal participation, we need to pay attention to something that most organizers overlook. And that is the submission experience itself.
The interface that researchers interact with when submitting their work matters more than most event planners today realize. A clunky submission portal is a recipe for disaster and will drive your submitters away. When you host a website that offers a subpar user experience, you are indirectly sending your potential presenters straight into the arms of competing conferences.
The Submission Portal Maze
Researchers attempting to submit abstracts now face systems that span multiple pages, require redundant information and crash without warning. When submission windows open, slots for popular tracks fill within hours. Technical glitches stretch what should take minutes into sessions lasting hours. A fear of lost work hangs heavy for many academic authors, with complete drafts vanishing before their eyes without explanation. There is minimal logic to it. However, there’s a whole lot of refreshing browsers and hoping autosave functions work, and sometimes neither of them seems to help.
The situation has only intensified as conferences moved virtual and hybrid. Organizers have added layer upon layer of requirements without considering the cumulative burden on submitters. Forms that once asked for a title and abstract now demand keywords, track selections, co-author approvals, conflict-of-interest declarations and funding information before allowing anyone to proceed. The submission process has become a labyrinth with no clear exit and the rules keep changing as researchers attempt to navigate them midway through.
Poor portal design creates friction at every step. Systems that time out after short periods of inactivity force users to start over. File upload interfaces that reject documents without explaining why leave submitters guessing at solutions. Confirmation emails that never arrive create uncertainty about whether submissions actually went through. Each of these problems pushes potential presenters toward conferences that have figured out how to make the process painless.
Conferences Are Beginning to Feel the Heat
Poor submission experiences cost conferences the reputations that took them years to build. Many organizing committees are, therefore, reconsidering whether their current platform makes sense: paying thousands for software that actively repels the very researchers they’re trying to attract. Conference organizers are now asking themselves if their technology choices are worth the gamble.
On that note, conferences are losing submissions as well as looking on as their attendee pools shrink. Most academic conferences depend heavily on presenter registration fees. This is an attractive proposition for events that are struggling with sponsorship declines. Presently, as a direct consequence of poor submission experiences, prominent conferences that once attracted 500+ abstracts are finding themselves with barely hundreds. They are therefore forcing some difficult conversations about venue downsizing and program cuts.
The connection between portal usability and submission volume is no longer theoretical. Conferences using outdated, difficult systems consistently underperform their potential. The impact shows up in year-over-year comparisons, in abandoned submission attempts tracked by analytics and in the quiet decisions researchers make about which conferences deserve their time and which don’t.
The UX Features That Make A Difference
What separates submission portals that work from those that don’t?Â
The answer is not in flashy features or elaborate designs. Researchers merely want systems that respect their time and do not punish them for the crime of trying to participate.
-
- Autosave functionality sits at the top of every researcher’s wish list. Nothing destroys trust faster than losing an hour of work because a session timed out or a browser tab accidentally closed. Systems that save progress automatically, without requiring users to click a button or remember to do it manually, remove an enormous source of anxiety from the submission process.
- Clear progress indicators tell users exactly where they stand in a multi-step process. When researchers can see they’re on step three of five, they make different decisions than when they’re clicking blindly through an unknown number of pages. Transparent progress bars reduce abandonment rates significantly.
- Real-time validation catches errors as they happen rather than at the end of a lengthy form. When a researcher enters an email address incorrectly, the system should flag it immediately, not wait until they’ve completed fifteen other fields before delivering bad news. Instant feedback prevents the frustration of reaching the final submission step only to discover something was wrong on page one.
- Mobile responsiveness has shifted from nice-to-have to essential. Researchers often work on abstracts during commutes, between meetings, or late at night from their phones. Submission portals that force users to switch to desktop computers create unnecessary barriers. The best systems work seamlessly across devices, allowing researchers to start a submission on their laptop, edit it on their tablet, and finish on their phone without losing anything along the way.
- Single sign-on options eliminate the need for yet another username and password combination. Researchers juggle dozens of accounts already. Platforms that allow sign-in through institutional credentials, Google, or ORCID reduce friction at the critical first step of the submission journey.
- Formatting flexibility recognizes that not everyone uses the same reference management software or document preparation system. Portals that accept submissions in multiple formats rather than demanding everything be converted to a specific template before upload acknowledge the reality of how researchers actually work.
What the Future Holds For User Experience (UX) Design
For researchers, submitting to major academic conferences should mean opportunity and a pathway to sharing research with peers. And not frustration and wasted time owing to a difficult website’s design. The conferences that thrive in 2026 will be those that make abstract submission effortless. The ones that struggle will be those that treat submission portals as afterthoughts, choosing systems based on price or familiarity rather than actual user experience. The market is already sorting conferences into these categories. The gap will only widen.
Smart conference organizers are acting now. They’re auditing their current submission processes and testing their portals on mobile devices. They’re timing how long it takes to complete a submission from start to finish. They’re asking whether every required field actually has a purpose and they’re choosing platforms that are built for researcher experience as opposed to administrative convenience.
Dryfta’s event management platform puts researchers first with intuitive abstract submission, automated workflows and mobile-friendly design that works for your event. Stop losing submissions to poor user experience and see how you can achieve higher submission rates than industry averages today. Sign up for a free demo here.