One of our sales representatives will contact you shortly.
Academic and medical conferences live or die on process. Submission volume spikes, reviewer capacity stretches thin, and organizers need clean data that flows from abstract intake to peer review to agenda publishing without retyping. Spreadsheets collapse under scale because they cannot enforce validation rules, hide identities for double-blind review, or keep acceptance decisions synchronized with speaker onboarding and session publication.
InEvent replaces that spreadsheet chaos with a structured, end-to-end call for papers workflow. InEvent Abstract Engine collects submissions through configurable forms, validates formatting rules, and stores content as structured records. InEvent Reviewer Portal assigns reviews by topic, enforces single-blind or Double-Blind Review, and calculates scoring automatically using defined Grading Criteria. InEvent Speaker Hub turns accepted authors into speakers who manage their own bios, headshots, posters, and slides. Then InEvent publishes accepted content into your agenda with one-click sync.For program chairs and scientific committees, abstract management is not just about collecting submissions—it is about protecting the integrity of the conference. Every decision must be fair, repeatable, auditable, and defensible months later when authors ask why a paper was rejected, when accreditation bodies request review records, or when sponsors evaluate the academic rigor of your program.
That’s why “good enough” systems eventually fail. Email folders, shared drives, and spreadsheets do not provide:
A tamper-proof record of what was submitted
A consistent framework for peer evaluation
A single source of truth for accepted content
Or a defensible audit trail for committee decisions
InEvent’s Abstract Engine treats call-for-papers management as a governance workflow, not a file-sharing problem. Every submission is stored as structured data. Every reviewer action is logged. Every decision is tied to scoring criteria. And every accepted abstract flows forward into your event program, speaker onboarding, and content distribution without rekeying.
This is why academic associations, medical congresses, and large universities rely on integrated event platforms rather than disconnected point tools. Abstracts are not just documents—they become sessions, speakers, learning assets, and compliance records inside your broader event management platform.
Email-based submissions and spreadsheet tracking work until they do not. Once you cross a few hundred abstracts, you start spending most of your time on operations instead of content quality.
Email submissions create predictable failure points:
Authors send wrong formats and versions
Attachments exceed size limits or get blocked
Abstract titles vary across files and emails
Co-authors submit duplicates
Organizers rename files manually to keep order
Missing fields cause follow-up back-and-forth
Spreadsheets drift out of sync with the actual files
At 1,000 submissions, manual systems generate operational debt:
Data entry work that introduces errors
Inconsistent metadata (topic, institution, disclosure)
Reviewer assignments based on incomplete information
Unclear source of truth when authors send corrections
InEvent Abstract Engine replaces email intake with a structured submission portal. You collect abstracts as records, not as scattered attachments. Organizers configure InEvent Custom Submission Forms to match the conference’s submission requirements.
InEvent supports structured fields such as:
Title, short title, and track/topic
Author and co-author details (institution, department, country)
Presenting author designation
Disclosure and conflict-of-interest declarations
Abstract body text with formatting constraints
Preferred presentation type (oral, poster, workshop)
Keywords and research area tags
Ethics approvals, trial registration IDs, consent statements (for medical)
This structure matters because review quality depends on consistent inputs.
Spreadsheets only detect errors after the fact. InEvent prevents errors before submission completes.
Use validation rules to enforce:
Word count limits for abstract body fields
Required fields for disclosures and ethics statements
File type restrictions (PDF only, image formats only)
Maximum file size thresholds
Required author roles (presenting author must exist)
Topic selection constraints (choose one primary track, up to three secondary keywords)
Custom acknowledgments and consent checkboxes
Validation protects reviewers. Reviewers score faster when the submission format stays consistent.
InEvent Abstract Engine supports a Submission Workflow that matches academic practice:
Draft state for authors to return and edit
Final submission lock to prevent last-minute changes after deadlines
Version control patterns (when your policy allows revisions)
Deadline enforcement by timezone
Administrative override tools for exceptions
This approach reduces “deadline week” operational load because the system enforces structure automatically.
Conferences need traceability:
Who submitted
When they submitted
What they changed
Which files attach to which abstract
InEvent tracks those submission events so you can resolve disputes without reconstructing email threads.
Large conferences are rarely single-country events. Authors submit from different regions, in different time zones, and under different regulatory requirements. Abstract intake must account for that complexity without increasing admin overhead.
InEvent’s submission framework supports:
Multi-language forms so international authors submit in their preferred language
Timezone-aware deadlines so cutoffs are enforced fairly across regions
Accessibility compliance (WCAG-aligned forms for screen readers and keyboard navigation)
Data privacy controls for GDPR, HIPAA, and institutional data handling
For medical and life-science events, this is critical. Ethics declarations, trial registration IDs, and patient consent statements are not optional fields—they are compliance requirements. InEvent enforces these conditions at the point of submission, eliminating the need for post-hoc audits.
This level of control ensures your call for papers aligns with broader organizational policies and legal standards, especially when abstracts later integrate into your event registration workflows and public-facing agenda.
The review phase requires fairness, specialization, and auditability. Organizers need to assign the right reviewers, enforce blinding rules, and compute results consistently across thousands of scores.
Academic integrity depends on:
Appropriate reviewer expertise by topic (oncology, cardiology, materials science, education research)
Consistent grading criteria across reviewers
Controlled visibility to reduce bias
Conflict-of-interest management
Transparent decision logic when chairs reconcile edge cases
Manual review systems fail because they cannot enforce process. They depend on people remembering rules under load.
InEvent Reviewer Portal creates a dedicated environment for reviewers with controlled access and structured scoring.
Organizers assign reviewers based on:
Track and topic tags
Reviewer expertise profiles
Institutional conflicts
Workload limits (max abstracts per reviewer)
Geographic considerations (when relevant)
Seniority weighting (chairs versus reviewers)
InEvent routes the right abstracts to the right reviewers without emailing attachments.
Different fields enforce different review standards. InEvent supports both common patterns:
Single-Blind Review
Reviewers see author identities.
Authors do not see reviewer identities.
Common when organizer committees prioritize transparency about institutions, prior work, or conflicts.
Double-Blind Review
Reviewers do not see author identities.
Authors do not see reviewer identities.
Common when conferences prioritize bias reduction and want scoring to focus on content quality.
InEvent enforces these modes by controlling which fields appear in the Reviewer Portal. When you run double-blind, InEvent hides author-identifying information from reviewer views and workflows you define.
Fair review requires a mechanism for recusal that does not rely on manual policing. InEvent supports reviewer actions that allow:
Declaring a conflict of interest
Recusing from a specific abstract
Triggering reassignment to another qualified reviewer
Logging the recusal for audit integrity
Organizers maintain process credibility because the system records the reason and time of recusal.
Scoring fails when reviewers interpret a “7” differently. Define criteria explicitly.
InEvent supports Grading Criteria such as:
Novelty and contribution
Methodological rigor
Clinical relevance or translational value
Statistical validity
Clarity of writing and structure
Alignment to conference track
Ethical compliance and disclosures
You can run scoring as:
Single overall score (1–10)
Multi-criteria scoring (each criterion scored separately)
Weighted scoring (criteria carry different weights)
This structure matters because it turns acceptance decisions into defendable outcomes.
InEvent Abstract Engine calculates:
Average score across reviewers
Weighted scores based on criteria
Standard deviation to detect reviewer disagreement
Rank ordering within tracks
Reviewers can also leave:
Confidential comments for the committee
Optional feedback for authors (if you provide it)
InEvent keeps comments tied to the submission record and review stage so you avoid email side channels.
Large conferences require operational controls:
Reviewer assignment balancing
Reminder automation for overdue reviews
Chair dashboards showing completion by track
Escalation workflows when reviewers drop out
Audit trails showing who scored what and when
InEvent supports these patterns with structured review states and centralized visibility.
At scale, review quality depends on oversight—not just automation. Program chairs need real-time visibility into how scoring is progressing, where bottlenecks exist, and whether review distributions are balanced.
InEvent provides chair-level dashboards that show:
Review completion rates by track and reviewer
Abstracts with high score variance (flagging disagreement)
Submissions awaiting reassignment due to recusal or drop-off
Acceptance distribution across topics, regions, or institutions
This enables chairs to intervene early—before decisions are finalized—ensuring fairness across the program.
In addition, InEvent preserves a complete review audit trail:
Who reviewed what
Which criteria were applied
How final decisions were calculated
When communications were sent
That auditability is essential for accreditation bodies, ethics committees, and executive boards. It is also what allows your abstract process to integrate cleanly into enterprise-grade event analytics without compromising confidentiality.
After review, the hardest part becomes communication. Committees decide outcomes, then organizers must notify hundreds or thousands of authors without mistakes.
Manual notification fails because:
Organizers copy and paste decisions incorrectly
Authors receive the wrong template
Acceptance requires follow-up steps that get lost
Speakers do not confirm in time
Poster and oral assignments drift away from decisions
InEvent automates decision messaging inside the Abstract Engine.
A standard workflow:
Committee sets status: Accept, Reject, Waitlist, Revision Requested
InEvent sends the corresponding email template automatically
InEvent includes structured next steps and deadlines
InEvent logs communication in the submission record
This keeps communication consistent and reduces errors under time pressure.
InEvent supports automation logic:
Click Accept → InEvent sends “Congratulations” with presenter instructions.
Click Reject → InEvent sends a rejection message with optional feedback.
Click Waitlist → InEvent sends a waitlist notice and timelines.
Click Revision Requested → InEvent sends revision instructions and re-submission rules.
Organizers maintain control through templates, timing rules, and approval gates when needed.
Acceptance does not guarantee presentation. Organizers need confirmation to build a stable agenda.
InEvent supports confirmation workflows where:
Accepted presenters click a confirmation link
InEvent records confirmation status
InEvent triggers reminders before deadlines
Organizers see confirmation dashboards by track
This prevents last-minute schedule collapse.
In many academic and scientific programs, acceptance does not simply convert an author into a speaker. There are multiple roles involved:
Corresponding author
Presenting author
Session chair or moderator
Co-authors with limited public visibility
InEvent supports role-based workflows where each participant receives only the actions relevant to their role. For example:
Presenting authors are prompted to confirm attendance and upload slides
Co-authors may only be asked to approve bios or disclosures
Session chairs receive moderation instructions and scheduling updates
This reduces confusion, prevents accidental edits, and ensures every participant interacts only with what they need. These roles then sync automatically into your speaker management system, eliminating duplicate data entry and reducing onboarding time.
Most conferences waste weeks retyping titles, copying abstracts into session descriptions, and rebuilding speaker profiles for the program. That manual step introduces errors and delays publication.
InEvent treats accepted abstracts as structured content. You can publish that content into the event program with controlled transformations.
InEvent supports one-click publishing patterns where:
Abstract title becomes the session name
Abstract body becomes the session description
Author or presenting author becomes the speaker
Co-authors appear as additional contributors (based on your configuration)
Track/topic tags map to agenda categories
Presentation type maps to session formats (oral, poster, workshop)
This “sync” removes the most common content management failure in academic events: multiple sources of truth.
Poster sessions require special handling:
High volume (hundreds to thousands)
Session grouping by topic and time block
Digital poster uploads and browsing
Search and filtering by keywords and authors
Poster judging workflows for awards
InEvent can structure poster sessions as:
A searchable Poster Sessions directory
Time-blocked poster presentation windows
Virtual poster gallery experiences (when needed)
Poster-specific metadata (board number, hall, track)
This approach prevents poster content from becoming a PDF list that no one uses.
Academic conferences often publish in phases:
Preliminary program
Accepted abstract list
Full agenda with session times and rooms
Final speaker list with updated bios
InEvent supports staged publishing so you control what becomes visible and when.
Most academic events break down at the point where reviewed content becomes public program content. Organizers copy titles, paste abstracts, reformat text, rebuild speaker profiles, and manually correct errors across multiple systems.
This is where credibility erodes.
InEvent’s structured publishing model enforces content governance:
The abstract record remains the canonical source of truth
Only approved fields are exposed to the agenda
Updates to speaker data propagate automatically
Session metadata stays consistent across web, mobile, and printed outputs
Because accepted abstracts flow directly into your agenda, they also integrate with your event website builder, your mobile app, and your attendee search experience. Attendees browse sessions using the same metadata your reviewers evaluated—no mismatches, no formatting drift.
This also means that post-event assets (recordings, slides, posters) remain linked to the original abstract record, creating a long-term knowledge archive rather than a one-off schedule.
Poster sessions are often the most content-rich part of a scientific conference—and the least measurable. Traditional halls offer no insight into which posters were viewed, discussed, or cited.
InEvent transforms poster sessions into structured digital content:
Attendees can filter by topic, institution, author, or keyword
Poster views, downloads, and bookmarks are tracked as engagement events
Judges score posters using the same Grading Criteria engine used for abstracts
Award shortlists are generated automatically based on weighted scoring
This not only improves the attendee experience but also provides engagement analytics that help organizers understand which research areas attract the most attention.
Because these signals feed into your broader event analytics and ROI reporting, poster sessions stop being invisible content and become measurable academic assets.
Once you accept speakers, operations shift from review to onboarding. Speaker management fails when organizers chase headshots and bios across email threads.
InEvent Speaker Hub gives speakers a self-service portal to manage their session assets and profile content.
Speakers can upload:
Headshots
Bios and credentials
Disclosures
Slide decks
Handouts and supplementary materials
Poster PDFs or images (for poster presenters)
Pre-recorded videos (for hybrid or virtual programs)
InEvent keeps these assets tied to the session record. Organizers stop acting as human file routers.
Speaker Hub improves operations because:
Speakers update their own bios, reducing stale information
Speakers own compliance documents, reducing missing disclosures
Organizers maintain one source of truth for all session assets
Speakers see deadlines and requirements clearly
This directly reduces last-minute program edits and print errors.
Medical and scientific conferences often require:
Disclosure statements
Conflict-of-interest forms
Ethics approvals
Slide review workflows
Deadline enforcement
InEvent supports structured requirements so speakers cannot “forget” critical documents without the system flagging it.
For large academic associations, speaker experience directly impacts long-term participation. When presenters struggle with unclear requirements, missing deadlines, or lost uploads, they are less likely to submit again next year.
InEvent Speaker Hub improves retention by:
Giving presenters a single portal for all event assets
Showing deadlines, required documents, and compliance steps clearly
Allowing speakers to update their own bios and credentials
Providing confirmation status and upload validation
This creates a professional, low-friction experience that encourages repeat submissions and long-term engagement with your conference community.
It also ensures that speaker data remains consistent across your event app, website, and post-event content libraries—without additional admin work.
Abstract management does not exist in isolation. For most academic and medical events, submission data becomes the foundation for multiple downstream systems:
Registration segmentation (presenters, chairs, judges)
Agenda publishing and track organization
Speaker onboarding and content delivery
Sponsor program alignment
Accreditation reporting and compliance audits
InEvent is designed as a connected ecosystem, not a standalone abstract tool. Abstract records flow into:
Event registration software (presenters receive role-based access)
Speaker management (bios, disclosures, and assets)
Agenda and session scheduling
Mobile apps and attendee search
Analytics dashboards and executive reporting
This eliminates the costly “rebuild” phase that happens when teams use disconnected systems for submission, review, scheduling, and content publishing.
Instead of exporting CSVs and reconciling mismatched data, your program becomes a continuous workflow—from call for papers to post-event reporting.
Academic conferences need process discipline. InEvent delivers a structured call for papers lifecycle that replaces spreadsheets with a controlled system:
InEvent Abstract Engine for validated submission intake and structured metadata
InEvent Reviewer Portal for topic-based assignment, blind review enforcement, and scoring
Support for Double-Blind Review, conflict of interest, and rubric-based Grading Criteria
Automated acceptance and rejection messaging with confirmation workflows
One-click sync from accepted abstracts to sessions, speakers, and agenda publishing
InEvent Speaker Hub for self-service bios, slides, handouts, and poster assets
Poster session management and digital poster gallery workflows for hybrid delivery
This is how medical associations, scientific organizers, and universities run high-volume call for papers programs without email chaos, spreadsheet drift, or retyping accepted content into the agenda.
Abstract volume grows quickly as conferences expand globally, introduce new tracks, or adopt hybrid formats. What works at 200 submissions collapses at 2,000.
InEvent is built to handle:
Tens of thousands of abstracts across multiple tracks
Distributed reviewer teams across regions
Tiered committees with chairs, co-chairs, and sub-reviewers
Parallel deadlines for different submission categories
Hybrid delivery (in-person, virtual, poster, workshop)
Because every step—submission, review, acceptance, publishing, speaker onboarding—is structured and automated, scale does not introduce chaos. It simply increases throughput.
This is why enterprise organizers, universities, and medical associations adopt unified platforms rather than stitching together forms, review tools, and agenda software.
Answer: Yes. InEvent supports a virtual poster gallery workflow where presenters upload poster files and metadata, attendees browse by topic and author, and organizers structure poster sessions with searchable listings. This supports hybrid conferences and improves poster discoverability beyond printed halls.
Answer: Yes. InEvent Reviewer Portal supports conflict-of-interest workflows, including a recusal action that removes the abstract from the reviewer’s queue and triggers reassignment. InEvent logs recusals to maintain audit integrity and protect double-blind review fairness.
Answer: Yes. InEvent supports weighted scoring criteria, multi-criterion rubrics, and automated aggregation across reviewers. Organizers define grading criteria and weights, and InEvent Abstract Engine calculates totals, averages, and rankings to support consistent acceptance decisions across tracks.
Answer: Yes. InEvent Abstract Engine supports track-based segmentation so committees manage only their scope. You can assign track chairs, topic reviewers, and admin roles with controlled visibility, then publish accepted content by track into the agenda without cross-track data leakage.
6. Can we integrate abstracts into registration and access control?
Answer: Yes. Accepted authors, chairs, judges, and presenters can be assigned roles that sync directly into InEvent’s event registration system. This allows you to control access to speaker portals, judge dashboards, and restricted sessions without manual lists or duplicate accounts.
7. Can we analyze which abstracts drive attendance and engagement?
Answer: Yes. Once abstracts are published into sessions and posters, InEvent tracks engagement such as session attendance, poster views, downloads, and interactions. These metrics appear in your event analytics dashboards, helping you identify which topics, authors, and tracks generate the highest impact.
