Abstract management software is the system that event teams use to collect, review, score, and organize research submissions — from the initial call for abstracts through final agenda placement. Most teams still manage this process across email inboxes, spreadsheets, and disconnected review tools — which is where proposals get lost, reviewers work in silos, and accepted abstracts have to be manually re-entered before they become scheduled sessions.

What is abstract management software?

Abstract management software is a centralized platform that handles the full lifecycle of content submissions for conferences, academic events, and association programs. At its core, the software manages three things: collecting submissions via structured forms, routing them through one or more rounds of peer review, and organizing accepted content into a publishable program or agenda.

The term "abstract" in this context refers to a proposal — a summary of a presentation, research paper, poster, or panel submitted for consideration. It is not yet a confirmed session. That distinction matters more than most platforms acknowledge, and we'll come back to it.

Organizations that manage abstract programs include medical societies that run annual scientific meetings, academic institutions that host research conferences, and professional associations that curate multi-track programs with hundreds of submissions. The common thread is volume: when you're reviewing 50, 500, or 5,000 submissions, the workflow needs to be structured, transparent, and connected to what happens after a submission gets accepted.

How does the abstract management process work?

The abstract management process runs in stages, and each stage has specific requirements that software should support. Here's how it works in practice.

Stage 1: Call for abstracts. The organizing committee defines submission guidelines — topics, formats, word limits, deadlines — and publishes a submission portal. Submitters fill out structured forms that capture the abstract title, description, author information, track or topic category, and any supporting files. The best systems allow you to define different form types for different submission categories (research papers vs. posters vs. panels, for example) and collect participant information directly within the form — authors, co-authors, and presenters with their respective roles.

Stage 2: Review and evaluation. Submitted abstracts are routed to reviewers. This is where the process either works or falls apart. A single-pass review with one reviewer per submission is fine for small programs, but serious conferences run a multi-round review: an initial screening, a deeper evaluation by subject-matter experts, and a final committee decision. Each round should have its own scorecard, reviewer pool, and timeline. Anonymization (single-blind or double-blind) is standard for academic and medical programs. The software should let you assign specific submissions to specific reviewers, set limits on how many reviews each person handles, and track progress in real time.

Stage 3: Decision and notification. Based on review scores and committee discussion, submissions are accepted, rejected, or sent back for revision. Accepted abstracts are flagged for inclusion in the program. Automated notifications keep submitters informed at every stage — no one should be left wondering whether their proposal was received, reviewed, or decided.

Stage 4: Program placement. This is the stage most abstract management tools handle poorly — or skip entirely. Accepted abstracts need to be scheduled as sessions on the agenda. That means transferring all the metadata (title, description, speakers, track, format) from the submission record into the program builder without re-entering it. If your software treats an abstract and a session as the same object, this transfer either doesn't happen cleanly or doesn't happen at all.

What is the difference between an abstract and a session?

This is the question most platforms avoid — and it's the one that matters most operationally.

An abstract is a proposal. It's what gets submitted during the call for abstracts. It represents an idea, a research summary, or a topic pitch that has not yet been vetted, approved, or scheduled. It lives in the review pipeline.

A session is a finalized, agenda-ready item. It has been accepted, assigned a time slot and room, connected to confirmed speakers, and cleared for publication on the event website or app. It lives on the agenda.

In many programs — especially at medical societies and large associations — multiple abstracts are combined into a single session. Three related research proposals could be grouped into a single panel. A cluster of poster abstracts might be organized into a themed poster session. The review committee evaluates abstracts individually, but the program team builds sessions from groups of accepted abstracts.

Most abstract management platforms don't make this distinction. They treat every submission as a "session" from the moment it arrives, which creates confusion during review (your committee is scoring unfinished proposals as if they're confirmed sessions) and friction during program building (you're retrofitting submission data into a scheduling structure it was never designed for).

The platforms built for how programs actually work treat abstracts and sessions as separate entities with their own forms, views, and lifecycle stages — and automatically manage the transition between them when a submission is accepted.

What features should you look for in abstract management software?

Not every conference needs the same depth of tooling. A 50-submission corporate event has different requirements than a 3,000-submission medical society meeting. But there are features that separate software built for real programs from software that bolts an abstract collection onto an event registration tool.

Flexible submission forms. You should be able to define what you're collecting — abstracts, full sessions, posters, panels — and structure the form accordingly. Conditional logic, file uploads, and custom fields are baseline. The ability to collect participant information (authors, co-authors, presenters with custom role labels) directly within the submission form eliminates manual data entry later.

Multi-round peer review. A single evaluation pass is not sufficient for programs that run serious peer review. Look for round-based evaluation where each round has its own scorecard, timeline, anonymization settings, and reviewer assignments. Scorecards should support numeric ratings, dropdown-based scoring, qualitative text feedback, and file uploads — in any combination your committee needs.

Reviewer management. The system should let you assign specific submissions to specific reviewers, set limits (maximum reviews per evaluator, minimum reviews per submission), preview assignments before confirming, and track completion in real time. External reviewers should not need admin accounts — a dedicated reviewer portal with magic link access removes onboarding friction and security risks.

Submission payments. For academic and association events, submission fees are standard. The software should handle payments natively within the submission form — not through a separate tool that creates split workflows and reconciliation headaches. Look for promo code support, VAT configuration for international submissions, and PCI-compliant handling with no platform transaction fees.

Abstract-to-session workflow. This is the make-or-break feature. When an abstract is accepted, does it automatically become a schedulable session with all metadata intact? Or does your team re-enter the data manually? The best platforms manage this transition natively — accepted abstracts flow into the program builder without re-entry, and the audit trail from submission through acceptance is preserved.

Reporting and analytics. Submission dashboards, reviewer progress tracking, score distributions, and exportable reports should be standard. The ability to share dashboards with stakeholders who don't have platform accounts (via secure links) is increasingly important for committees that span organizations.

Integrations. If your organization uses an association management system (AMS) like iMIS, Personify, or Fonteva, or an event management platform like Cvent or Swoogo, the abstract management tool should connect to them. Abstract data shouldn't live in a silo.

What do most teams get wrong with abstract management?

Three patterns repeatedly appear in organizations running abstract programs for the first time—or switching from manual processes to software.

Starting the evaluation too late. The review process needs structure before the first submission arrives, not after. Define your scorecards, recruit your reviewers, and configure your rounds while the call for abstracts is still open. Teams that wait until submissions close to set up evaluation lose weeks.

Treating the submission form as an afterthought. The data you collect at submission determines what's available downstream — for review, for program building, for speaker communications. If you don't collect author roles, co-author information, or track preferences upfront, you'll be chasing that data manually after acceptance. Design your form around what the program team needs at the end, not just what the submission portal needs at the start.

Ignoring the abstract-to-session handoff. The most common source of operational chaos is the gap between "this abstract was accepted" and "this session is on the agenda." If your software doesn't handle that transition, your team fills the gap with spreadsheets, copy-paste, and manual data entry — where errors, omissions, and wasted hours accumulate.

How does Sessionboard handle abstract management?

Sessionboard's abstract management capability is built around a principle that most platforms don't follow: abstracts and sessions are different things, and the software should manage both.

"Most systems can handle a basic workflow. But very few hold up under the real complexity of how associations actually operate. Multiple review rounds. Different committees with different roles. Abstracts, posters, and research that don't fit neatly into a single structure. It's not that the tools don't work. It's that they weren't designed for this level of nuance." — Josh Parolin, Founder & CTO, Sessionboard

That insight shaped the product. Rather than layering incremental improvements onto an existing session management model, Sessionboard rebuilt abstract management from the ground up — specifically for organizations with complex submission processes.

When you collect abstracts through Sessionboard, they're captured as their own submission type — distinct from finalized sessions, with their own forms, views, and lifecycle management. Your review committee evaluates proposals as proposals. When an abstract is accepted, it transitions into a session automatically — all metadata intact, ready for scheduling in the agenda builder. No re-entry. No copy-paste. No lost context.

Round-based peer review that reflects real-world workflows. The evaluation system supports multi-round review natively. Each round has its own scorecard, anonymization settings, open/close dates, and reviewer pool. Reviewers access a dedicated portal via magic link — no admin accounts, no platform onboarding. Admins see aggregate scores, reviewer progress, and completion rates in a single dashboard. The assignment system lets you set limits per reviewer, preview all assignments before confirming, and track completion in real time.

"We weren't going to keep layering on incremental improvements. We were going to rebuild abstract management from the ground up — specifically for organizations where the review process has real structure and real stakes." — Josh Parolin

Dedicated workflows for abstracts, posters, and research. One of the biggest challenges teams face is forcing fundamentally different submission types into the same model. Sessionboard separates these into distinct workflows — each with its own structure, evaluation logic, and outputs — while keeping everything connected to your broader program.

Flexible submissions with integrated payments. Submission payments are built into the form — 100+ payment gateways supported, no platform transaction fees, PCI-compliant. Custom participant roles (author, co-author, panelist, or any label your community uses) are collected at submission and carried through to the program. Promo codes and VAT rules handle the real-world complexity of international submission fees.

Reporting without exporting. Instead of static dashboards, Sessionboard introduced natural language reporting — your team can ask questions directly and get immediate answers. Where are reviewer scores diverging? How do submissions compare year over year? Which topics are gaining traction? No need to pull data into another system.

AI is designed to assist, not replace. Sessionboard's AI layer supports reviewers in evaluating submissions more efficiently, surfaces patterns across large volumes of data, and reduces manual effort — with a focus on privacy and security. But always with your reviewers and committees in control.

For teams managing complex, multi-stage abstract programs at medical societies, academic conferences, or large professional associations, this is the workflow the platform was designed around. And it's a foundation that continues to evolve as programs grow and their needs change.

What does abstract management look like at a major medical association?

The American Urological Association (AUA) produces one of the most respected and complex medical meetings in the world — attended by thousands of clinicians, researchers, educators, and industry leaders — with a program built from a high volume of abstract submissions, multi-stage peer review, committee-driven decisions, and downstream content distribution.

As submission volumes increased and program structures became more complex, the AUA's team recognized that incremental fixes to their existing process — which relied on manual coordination, disconnected tools, and institutional knowledge held by a small number of people — were no longer sustainable.

"We reached a point where the scale and complexity of our program demanded a more connected, purpose-built system. We weren't just managing sessions — we were managing a living ecosystem of speakers, abstracts, reviewers, committees, and content." — Katie Phipps, Annual Meeting Programs Coordinator, AUA

The AUA selected Sessionboard because the platform treats speakers, abstracts, sessions, and agendas as connected assets rather than isolated workflows — mirroring how their teams, committees, and reviewers actually work. The decision was about more than operational efficiency. It was about protecting the integrity of one of the world's most respected medical meetings while positioning the team to scale with confidence.

"The pace of innovation, combined with how closely the platform aligns with our needs, made the decision clear — nothing else compares." — Melissa Goodman, Director, Annual Meeting Program, Convention & Meetings, AUA

Read the full AUA announcement →

Frequently asked questions

What is the difference between abstract management and a call for papers?

A call for papers (or call for abstracts) is the public announcement inviting submissions. Abstract management is the full operational workflow that follows: collecting those submissions, routing them through review, making acceptance decisions, and placing accepted content on the agenda. The call for papers is the first step. Abstract management is the entire process.

How far in advance should you set up abstract management for a conference?

Start at least six months before the event. For large association or medical conferences, nine to twelve months is more realistic. The call for abstracts typically opens months before the event, and your evaluation structure, reviewer recruitment, and scorecards should be configured before the first submission arrives.

Can you run a blind peer review with abstract management software?

Yes — most platforms built for academic or medical programs support single-blind and double-blind review. The key is that anonymization should be configurable per review round, not just on/off globally. Some rounds may be blind (initial screening), while later rounds (committee discussion) may need full visibility.

What is the difference between an abstract and a session?

An abstract is a proposal — a submission made in response to a call for content. A session is a finalized, agenda-ready item that has been accepted, scheduled, and connected to confirmed speakers. In many programs, multiple abstracts are combined into a single session. Software that maintains this distinction gives your committee clearer evaluation and your program team a cleaner handoff.

Do you need separate software for abstract management and event management?

Not necessarily, but the abstract management capability needs to be purpose-built — not a light add-on to a registration or event app platform. The best approach is either a dedicated abstract management tool that integrates with your event management system or a platform that handles both with sufficient depth in the review and program-building workflows.

How do you handle submission fees in abstract management?

The cleanest approach is to embed payment collection directly into the submission form. This avoids split workflows between a submission tool and a separate payment processor. Look for software that connects to your existing payment gateway, supports promo codes and VAT rules, and doesn't charge platform transaction fees on top of your gateway's processing fees.

What types of events use abstract management software?

Medical societies and healthcare conferences, academic and research conferences, professional associations running annual meetings, scientific symposiums, and any organization that solicits, reviews, and curates submitted content for a program. The common factor is a structured peer review of submitted proposals at scale.

How do you assign reviewers to abstracts effectively?

Define assignment criteria before the review opens: how many reviews each submission needs, how many submissions each reviewer can handle, and whether assignments are based on topic expertise or randomized. The software should let you preview all assignments before confirming them, filter submissions by any field, and track reviewer progress in real time so you can reassign if someone falls behind.

Managing abstracts, sessions, and speakers for your event? Sessionboard keeps your entire content program connected — from the call for abstracts to the published agenda. [See how it works →]