You’ve set your submission deadline. You’ve drafted the call for papers. You’ve checked that the Portal is live. And then the emails start.
“I can’t figure out how to add my co-author.”
“The file upload keeps failing.”
“Does the 300-word limit mean words or characters?”
“I submitted twice by accident — can you delete one?”
By the time your submission window closes, your inbox looks like a support ticket queue, your program chair is asking why reviewers haven’t been assigned yet, and someone from legal is asking a GDPR question you definitely don’t know the answer to.
Sound familiar? You’re not alone.
Abstract submission Portals look simple from the outside. They’re not. The requirements that get skipped or skimmed during setup (the ones that seem minor right up until the moment they cause chaos) are exactly what this checklist is designed to catch.
Before your next call for papers opens, run through this list. Your future self will thank you.
1. Nail Your Submission Form Requirements Before Anyone Submits Anything
The submission form is the very first thing your submitters interact with. If it’s confusing or poorly configured, you’ll feel the consequences for weeks.
- Word count vs. character count: These are not the same thing, and your submitters will not read the fine print carefully enough to notice the difference. Researchers think in word count; many platforms enforce character limits. Set whichever applies, say so clearly, and display a live counter so authors can see it in real time. Nobody wants to hit a wall after 45 minutes of writing.
- File type and size restrictions: If you’re collecting figures, tables, or supplementary materials, tell authors exactly which formats you accept (PDF, JPEG, PNG) and what the size limit is before they try to upload. Not in an error message. Not buried in the FAQ. Right there in the interface where they’ll actually see it.
- Structured fields vs. free text: A single open text box for the full abstract might seem simpler to set up, but it makes life harder for everyone downstream, especially your reviewers. Structured abstracts—Background, Methods, Results, Conclusions—may improve reviewer agreement significantly compared to unstructured ones. Configure your fields to match the format you actually need.
- Multi-author support: Your Portal must make it easy for submitters to add co-authors with individual affiliations, credentials, and contact details. It should also allow designation of a corresponding author and, where relevant, a presenter. If your authors need to call your help desk to figure out how to add a second name to a submission, something has gone wrong.
- Topic and track classification: If your conference runs multiple themes, authors need to self-classify their submission accurately. This isn’t just a UX detail, it actually will determine how abstracts get routed for peer review. Vague taxonomy at submission means a sorting headache for your program committee in the near future.
2. Accessibility and Mobile-Readiness Are Not Optional Extras
Some items on this checklist are important; these two are non-negotiable. Accessibility is increasingly a legal requirement, and mobile-readiness is simply where the world has moved to.
WCAG 2.1 compliance matters for any conference Portal that expects researchers from public institutions, government-funded bodies, or EU member states to submit. The EU’s European Accessibility Act—which came into full force in June 2025—is a strong framework your association needs to adhere to. If you’re unsure whether your platform meets the standard, ask your vendor directly.
Beyond the legal angle: more than 60% of global web traffic now comes from mobile devices. Researchers update their submissions, add co-authors, and check submission status from their phones. A portal that breaks on mobile doesn’t just create a bad experience, it actively disadvantages submitters who don’t have reliable desktop access.
And if your conference draws international submissions, think about language. A beautifully translated call for papers doesn’t fully compensate for a Portal that only operates in one language. Multilingual interface support matters more than most organizers account for.
A few things to verify before your Portal goes live:
- Can someone navigate the full submission process using a screen reader?
- Does the form work properly on a phone screen?
- Are error messages readable and specific (not just “submission failed”)?
- Does every upload button, dropdown, and confirmation screen work outside a desktop browser?
3. Build Your Review Workflow into The Portal from Day One
Here’s a mistake that causes more headaches than almost anything else: treating the review process as a post-submission problem. It isn’t. The decisions you make when configuring your submission form directly shape how your peer review runs, so this is the time to think it through.
- Blinded review settings: Single-blind, double-blind, or open review need to be locked in before the first submission arrives. Who sees what, at what stage, and under what conditions? If your portal doesn’t support the review model your program chair has in mind, the time to find out is during setup, not after 800 abstracts have already come in.
- Conflict of interest declarations: Reviewers should be declaring conflicts as soon as possible, and your system should automatically prevent conflicted reviewers from seeing the submissions they can’t fairly evaluate. Manual COI management at scale is both error-prone and, for medical and STEM conferences, a genuine compliance risk. According to a study of large U.S. medical conferences, the majority use blinded reviews but very few have transparent, auditable scoring processes, partly because the underlying systems weren’t set up with this in mind.
- Reviewer scoring rubrics: A 1-to-5 rating scale tells your program committee almost nothing useful. Configure weighted scoring across dimensions that actually matter for your content, such as scientific rigor, novelty, methodological quality, presentation suitability. Set these up per track or submission type, including a detailed description on how to score each of these. The review management software you choose should make this straightforward.
- Reviewer workload limits: How many abstracts will each reviewer be assigned? Is there a limit?How many different topics can a reviewer review? These parameters should be enforced by the system, not by a coordinator managing a spreadsheet while also handling five other things.
For a deeper look at review setup: 5 Peer Review Features Every Scientific Conference Needs.
4. Set Up an Efficient Author Communication Workflow
Your abstract submission Portal is also a communication system. The automated messages that flow from it—confirmations, status updates, revision requests, decisions—are the thread that keeps your authors informed and your help desk clear.
- Submission confirmation emails: These should go out immediately, automatically, and include a unique submission ID. An author who submits and doesn’t receive a confirmation within a minute or two will submit again. Then email you. Then submit a third time to be safe.
- Revision and resubmission pathways: When reviewers request changes before acceptance, does your portal have a clear, structured process for authors to respond and resubmit? Or does it default to email threads managed by a coordinator? Build the revision workflow into your portal during setup, not as an afterthought.
- Acceptance and rejection notifications: These need to go out reliably, at scale, and with enough personalization that authors can clearly identify which submission is being discussed. A generic “your submission has been reviewed” email with no reference to the submission title or ID is not helpful.
- Deadline reminder sequences: Submission volumes reliably surge in the 24–48 hours before a deadline, but a well-timed reminder sequence (two weeks out, one week out, 48 hours out) spreads that surge and gives authors time to troubleshoot problems while you’re still awake to help.
5. Sort Your Data and Compliance Requirements Early
This is the item everyone knows they need to deal with and quietly plans to get to at some point. Make “some point” early. Trust us on this one.
- GDPR compliance: If you’re collecting submissions from researchers based in EU member states (if you’re running an international scientific conference, you almost certainly are) your platform and your processes need to be GDPR-compliant. That means a lawful basis for processing personal data, a data retention policy, the ability to fulfil subject access requests, and explicit consent captured at submission.
- Consent for co-author data: Submitters are providing not just their own data but their co-authors’ personal details. Make sure your submission form captures consent that covers this, and that your privacy notice explains clearly how co-author data is used and stored.
- Data export formats: After your conference, can you export all submission data in a clean, structured, reusable format such as CSV, Excel, or XML? Proprietary lock-in at the data layer is a long-term risk. Confirm this before you commit to any platform.
- Institutional affiliation validation: If your conference offers member-rate submission fees or restricts certain tracks to institutional members, you need a reliable way to verify affiliations at submission. Whether that’s through a membership database integration or a manual admin review process, decide before your Portal goes live.
6. Plan Your Integrations in Advance
The quiet killer of abstract management efficiency is data that doesn’t move. Every time someone manually copies submission data from your abstract portal into a program building spreadsheet, or re-enters author details into a speaker management system, you’re creating opportunities for errors, inconsistencies, and delays.
Your submission portal should feed cleanly into the rest of your event workflow:
- Program management. Accepted abstracts should flow directly into your scheduling process without re-entry. Integrated submission and session software eliminates the manual bridge between the two.
- Speaker management. Accepted abstract authors who are confirmed as presenters shouldn’t have to fill out a whole new profile. Their data should carry through. Link your speaker management system to your abstract Portal from the start.
- ePoster platforms. If your conference includes a poster track, abstracts accepted for poster presentation should move cleanly into your ePoster management workflow without a manual handoff.
- Registration. Connecting submitter and presenter records to your registration data saves time at badge printing, simplifies access control, and makes it easier to track who actually shows up among your accepted contributors.
The Checklist: A Quick-Reference Summary
Before your call for papers opens, confirm you’ve covered the following.
Submission Form
- ☐ Word or character limit defined, displayed, and enforced with a live counter.
- ☐ File type and size restrictions specified in the interface (not just the FAQ).
- ☐ Structured abstract fields configured per submission type.
- ☐ Multi-author entry enabled, with per-author affiliations, credentials, and designations.
- ☐ Topic and track taxonomy defined and tested.
Accessibility & UX
- ☐ WCAG 2.1 compliance confirmed with your platform vendor.
- ☐ Full submission flow tested on mobile.
- ☐ Error messages are specific, human-readable, and actionable.
- ☐ Language/localization options match your submitter demographics.
Review Workflow
- ☐ Blinded review settings configured before submission opens.
- ☐ COI declaration and automated exclusion logic in place.
- ☐ Weighted scoring rubrics configured per track.
- ☐ Reviewer load limits enforced at the system level.
Author Communications
- ☐ Instant submission confirmation with unique submission ID.
- ☐ Structured revision and resubmission pathway configured.
- ☐ Acceptance and rejection notification templates ready and tested.
- ☐ Automated deadline reminder sequence scheduled.
Data & Compliance
- ☐ GDPR compliance confirmed in writing with your platform vendor.
- ☐ Explicit consent captured at submission, including for co-author data.
- ☐ Clean data export in standard formats confirmed.
- ☐ Institutional affiliation validation process defined.
Integrations (you can ignore this part if you use an all-in-one content management platform like cOASIS)
- ☐ Program management data flow mapped and tested.
- ☐ Speaker management linkage confirmed.
- ☐ ePoster platform handoff process defined.
- ☐ Registration system connection confirmed.
Wrapping Up…
The requirements on this list aren’t edge cases. They’re the things that cost the most time to fix once your submission window is open, when your team is already at full stretch and your authors are already frustrated.
Get them right during setup, and your call for papers will run the way it should: authors submit without calling you, reviewers get assigned without manual scrambling, and your program committee makes decisions based on good data rather than incomplete records.
That’s what a well-configured abstract management system makes possible. Not magic. Just fewer fires.
Ready to see what our all-in-one abstract management system looks like in practice? Book a demo with our team to explore all the features.
