Sessionboard vs Linklings.
Linklings has run submission and review for technical conferences for over 20 years, and review is where it stops adding value. Sessionboard runs the same call for papers, blind review, and committee workflows, then keeps going: a speaker CRM that carries faculty across years, a portal that gets presenters to the podium ready, and transcription plus a content library on every session. One system from first submission to published program, without a vendor request queue in the middle.
SIDE BY SIDE
Where each one does its work.
Read from the approved comparison, not from a feature checklist. Where we could not verify a Linklings capability from their own material, the cell says so.
| Capability | Sessionboard | Linklings |
|---|---|---|
| Review rounds and committees | Review plans with rounds, committees, rubrics and conflict-of-interest rules. Your team changes forms and review steps without a services ticket. | Twenty years of single- and double-blind review, rebuttals, and reviewer discussion workflows for the review phase of technical conferences. Committees at SC, SIGGRAPH, and similar conferences have run their review cycles on it for years. |
| Onsite logistics add-ons | Not offered. The agenda, rooms and speakers export to whatever runs signage and volunteers. | Signage, space planning, and student volunteer tracking, useful if a review vendor also handling signage matters to you. |
| Call for papers and abstracts | Submission forms with logic per track and format; abstracts, disclosures and files on one submission. Returning speakers arrive with their history. | varies |
| Speaker materials and portal | Branded speaker portal with task lists, agreements and e-sign; the Coordinator agent reminds whoever is late. | varies |
| Agenda and attendee program | Agenda builder with speaker and room conflict detection; program site, embeds and the Attend app update as it changes. | varies |
| Posters and ePosters | Poster tracks in the same call, review plan and portal; ePoster gallery with search and audio walkthroughs. | varies |
| Transcription and media library | Live Transcribe in the room or from Zoom, ON24 and Goldcast; transcripts, captions, clips and quote cards in a library searchable across events. | varies |
| Peer sharing with attribution | Share kits with tracked links for speakers, sponsors and attendees; registrations traced back to the share. | varies |
| Registration | Stays where it is. Accepted sessions and speakers sync to Cvent, Swoogo, Bizzabo and others. | varies |
| CRM and AMS | Two-way sync with HubSpot, Salesforce, iMIS, Fonteva and Nimble AMS; public API, webhooks and an MCP server. | varies |
Where Linklings fits best: signage and student volunteer logistics outweigh speaker experience and content capture in the buying decision. What often stays with Linklings for now: in-flight review rounds can finish in Linklings during a mid-cycle transition, then close out. This page compares workflow and product fit, not a feature checklist.
WHERE IT DIFFERS · AFTER ACCEPTANCE
Acceptance is where the speaker’s work starts, not where the software stops.
Review rounds, committees, rubrics and conflict-of-interest rules live on a review plan your chairs edit. When the decision lands, the accepted speaker gets a branded portal and a task list, and the Coordinator agent reminds whoever is late. Nothing is exported from Linklings into a spreadsheet to make that happen.
- Review plans & rounds
- Conflict-of-interest rules
- Speaker portal
- Coordinator agent
GROWSA program your committee trusts, and speakers who arrive ready
WHERE IT DIFFERS · THE RECORD KEEPS GOING
Every accepted session becomes content, and every speaker comes back with their history.
Live Transcribe captures the room, the media library keeps every word, and speakers share their own session with tracked links. Next cycle, returning authors and reviewers arrive with their submissions, scores and materials already on the record.
- Live Transcribe
- Media library
- Speaker share kits
- Returning speakers
GROWSReach this year and submissions next year
Questions, answered
Is Sessionboard a full Linklings replacement?
Yes. Call for papers, custom submission forms, single- and double-blind review, rebuttals, conflict-of-interest tracking, and committee workflows are native. Committees switch without giving up review rigor, and gain the speaker CRM, portal, and content layer that Linklings does not offer.
Can we keep Linklings for peer review and add Sessionboard?
You can run the split mid-contract, and accepted submissions import cleanly. Most teams consolidate at renewal instead: two systems mean two logins, two imports, and a seam in the data exactly where speaker handoff happens. Since Sessionboard runs the same blind review natively, the second system stops earning its keep.
We just signed with Linklings for next year. When does it make sense to look again?
Now, in parallel. Speaker CRM, portal, and content capture do not touch the review contract, so this year's faculty data can build value immediately while review finishes where it is. By renewal the committee is already working in one system and the consolidation decision makes itself.
Does Sessionboard handle double-blind review and conflict of interest?
Yes, natively: blind review modes, conflict-of-interest tracking, rebuttal workflows, and multi-round decisions. Bring your current review configuration to the demo and we will rebuild it live.
Can we export everything later?
Yes. Submissions, scores, speakers, agenda, transcripts and media export by CSV, program book export, the public API and webhooks.