A call for papers is a public invitation asking researchers, speakers, or practitioners to submit proposals for your event. Abstract management is the operational workflow that handles everything after those submissions arrive — collecting them through structured forms, routing them through peer review, making acceptance decisions, and placing accepted content on the agenda.

Most event teams use these terms interchangeably. They aren't the same thing, and the confusion creates real problems when it's time to choose software, structure your review process, or hand off accepted proposals to your program team.

What is a call for papers?

A call for papers — also called a call for abstracts, call for proposals, or call for submissions — is the announcement your organizing committee publishes to invite content submissions. It defines what you're looking for: topic areas, submission formats (research papers, posters, panels, workshops), word limits, eligibility criteria, and deadlines.

The call for papers is a communication and recruitment tool. It lives on your event website, gets distributed through email campaigns and professional networks, and runs for a defined window — typically 8 to 16 weeks before review begins. When the submission deadline closes, the call for papers has done its job.

What it does not do is manage what happens next. It doesn't route submissions to reviewers, score them against evaluation criteria, track reviewer progress, or transfer accepted content into your agenda. That's where abstract management begins.

There's also a broader question worth asking: should your speaker pipeline be tied to a single event's CFP window at all? Some organizations maintain an always-on speaker interest pipeline — collecting session ideas, topic pitches, and speaker interest year-round, independent of any specific event. The call for papers then becomes one input into a pipeline that's already active, rather than the only way speakers can surface.

What is abstract management?

Abstract management is the full operational workflow that runs from the moment submissions start arriving through final program placement. It covers four stages: collection, review, decision, and program placement.

Collection means receiving submissions through structured forms that capture everything your review committee and program team will need downstream — title, description, author information, track preferences, co-author roles, and supporting files. The form design matters more than most teams realize, because the data you collect at submission determines what's available for review, what carries over to the agenda, and what you'll have to chase manually later.

Review means routing submissions to evaluators through one or more rounds of peer review. For programs that take evaluation seriously, this involves independent scorecards per round, configurable anonymization (single-blind or double-blind), reviewer assignment limits, and real-time progress tracking. A single-pass review with one reviewer per submission works for small programs. Anything at scale needs multi-round evaluation with committee oversight — and increasingly, teams are using AI-assisted evaluation to provide a first-pass scoring baseline before human reviewers begin.

Decision means accepting, rejecting, or requesting revisions — and communicating those decisions to submitters automatically so no one is left wondering whether their proposal was received, reviewed, or decided on.

Program placement means taking accepted abstracts and turning them into scheduled sessions on your agenda. This is the stage most tools handle poorly. Accepted proposals need to carry all their metadata — title, description, speakers, track, format — into the program builder without being re-entered manually. If your software treats an abstract and a session as the same object, this transfer either creates data problems or doesn't happen at all.

Why does the distinction matter?

The confusion between a call for papers and abstract management leads to three operational problems that show up repeatedly at associations, academic conferences, and medical society meetings.

Buying the wrong software. Teams searching for "call for papers software" often end up with a tool that handles submission collection but treats review and program building as afterthoughts. A submission form is the easiest part of the workflow to build. The hard part — multi-round peer review, reviewer management, and the handoff from accepted abstract to scheduled session — is where most tools fall short. If your software only covers the call for papers, your team fills the gap with spreadsheets, email chains, and manual data entry.

Underestimating the review process. When teams think of abstract management as "just the CFP," they don't invest enough time in structuring their evaluation workflow before submissions open. Scorecards, reviewer recruitment, assignment rules, and anonymization settings should all be configured before the first submission arrives — not after the deadline closes and your committee is already behind.

Losing data in the handoff. The most common source of wasted hours is the gap between "this abstract was accepted" and "this session is on the agenda." If your process treats the call for papers and the program as separate workflows with no connection between them, your team is re-entering accepted proposals manually. That's where errors, omissions, and lost speaker data accumulate.

What does the full workflow look like end-to-end?

When the call for papers and the abstract management process work together, the workflow runs as a connected pipeline—not a series of disconnected steps.

It starts with the call for papers, defining what you're collecting and publishing a submission portal. Submitters complete structured forms that capture everything the review committee and program team need. When the submission window closes, the abstract management process takes over: submissions are routed to reviewers, scored against defined criteria across one or more rounds, and presented to the committee for final decisions.

Accepted abstracts then transition into sessions — scheduled, speaker-confirmed, agenda-ready items with all metadata intact from the original submission. No re-entry. No copy-paste. The call for papers created the pipeline. Abstract management processed it. And the program team received finished sessions ready for scheduling.

The platforms built for this workflow treat abstracts and sessions as separate entities — proposals in the review pipeline and finalized items on the agenda — and automatically manage the transition between them.

How does Sessionboard handle both?

Sessionboard manages the full workflow from call for abstracts through program placement, with a structural distinction most platforms skip: abstracts and sessions are different things, and the software treats them that way.

Your call for papers uses customizable submission forms that collect everything your program needs — participant roles (author, co-author, panelist, or any label your community uses), track preferences, supporting files, and submission payments — all built directly into the form. Different submission categories get different form types, so research abstracts, posters, and panel proposals aren't forced into the same structure.

When submissions close, the evaluation system routes them through a multi-round peer review. 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 onboarding friction. Admins see aggregate scores, reviewer progress, and completion rates in a single dashboard.

When an abstract is accepted, it transitions into a session automatically — all metadata intact, ready for scheduling in the agenda builder. Multiple abstracts can be combined into a single session. The audit trail from submission through acceptance is preserved.

"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, American Urological Association

For teams that have been managing the call for papers and the program as separate workflows, this is where the operational savings are most visible — not in collecting submissions, but in everything that happens after.

Compare abstract management platforms for 2026 →

Frequently asked questions

Is a call for papers the same as abstract management?

No. A call for papers is a public invitation asking people to submit proposals for your event. Abstract management is the full workflow that follows: collecting those submissions through structured forms, routing them through peer review, making acceptance decisions, and placing accepted content on the agenda. The call for papers is one step within the broader abstract management process.

What is the difference between a call for papers and a call for abstracts?

In practice, these terms are used interchangeably. A "call for papers" is more common in academic and research contexts, while a "call for abstracts" is used at medical society meetings and some association conferences. Both refer to the same thing: an invitation to submit content. Some organizations also use "call for proposals" or "call for submissions."

Do I need separate software for the call for papers and abstract management?

Not if your platform is built for the full workflow. The best approach is a single system that handles submission collection, peer review, acceptance decisions, and program placement as a connected pipeline. Using separate tools for the CFP and the review process creates data silos and manual re-entry. Look for software that manages the entire lifecycle in one place.

What happens to an abstract after it's accepted?

In a well-designed workflow, an accepted abstract transitions into a session — a finalized, agenda-ready item with all metadata intact from the original submission. The session gets assigned a time slot, connected to confirmed speakers, and published on the program. In many programs, multiple abstracts are combined into a single session. If your software doesn't manage this transition automatically, your team handles it manually.

How far in advance should you open a call for papers?

For most conferences, the call for papers opens 6 to 9 months before the event. For large association or medical meetings, 9 to 12 months is more realistic. The key is that your evaluation structure — scorecards, reviewer recruitment, assignment rules, anonymization settings — should be configured before the first submission arrives, not after the deadline closes.

Can a call for papers collect submission fees?

Yes, if your abstract management software supports it. Submission fees are standard at academic and association events. The cleanest approach is payment collection built directly into the submission form, connected to your existing payment gateway. This avoids split workflows between a submission tool and a separate payment processor.

What types of events use a call for papers?

Academic and research conferences, medical society annual meetings, professional association conferences, scientific symposiums, and any event that solicits, reviews, and curates submitted content for a program. The common factor is structured peer review of submitted proposals at scale — not just collecting speaker applications.

What is the difference between an abstract and a session?

An abstract is a proposal — a submission made during the call for content that has not yet been vetted, approved, or scheduled. A session is a finalized, agenda-ready item that has been accepted, assigned a time slot, connected to confirmed speakers, and cleared for publication. In many programs, multiple abstracts are combined into a single session. Software that maintains this distinction gives your review committee clearer evaluation and your program team a cleaner handoff.

Managing the full workflow from call for abstracts through published agenda? Sessionboard keeps abstracts, sessions, and speakers connected at every stage. See how it works →