Scientific program committee
Blind review, conflict-of-interest exclusion, and a scoring rubric are requirements — the process has to prove it was fair.
Abstract submission software: a buyer's guide
Almost every abstract submission tool handles the easy part well. Authors fill in a form, the submissions land somewhere, and the deadline passes. What separates them is everything after: whether reviewers can be assigned by topic with conflicts excluded, whether scoring is structured enough to defend a rejection, whether disclosures and CE fields are collected at submission or chased in month three, and whether an accepted abstract becomes a scheduled session with a confirmed presenter or a row in a spreadsheet somebody re-keys. This guide compares the categories honestly, including the cases where a free form genuinely wins.
QUICK ANSWER
Abstract submission software collects structured proposals, routes them to reviewers for scored and often blind evaluation, and records decisions. The options split by where they stop: form builders collect but do not review, academic tools end at the decision, suite modules depend on vendor configuration, and program platforms carry acceptance through to speaker materials and the schedule.
WHO THIS IS FOR
Buying for which problem?
The right tool depends less on submission volume than on what has to happen after the committee decides.
Education director (CE/CME)
Learning objectives and disclosures have to be collected at submission or accreditation paperwork becomes a manual reconstruction.
Event operations
Acceptance is the handoff that breaks — presenter confirmations, bios, and slides should come from the submission record, not a new form.
Small conference organizer
Under fifty abstracts with one review round, a paid platform is overkill — you need to know where the free ceiling actually is.
LANDSCAPE
How the options actually differ
Ordered roughly by where each one stops in the lifecycle, which is the distinction that matters more than price.
| Vendor | Best when | Tradeoffs | Pricing note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Form builders (Google Forms, Typeform, Jotform) | Collection is the whole job — under ~50 abstracts, a single reviewer or a committee that meets once, and no blind review requirement. | Review happens in an exported spreadsheet, reviewer assignment and scoring are manual, no COI handling, and nothing persists to next year's call. | Free to roughly $30/month. |
| Academic review tools (Ex Ordo, Oxford Abstracts, ConfTool) | Peer-reviewed academic conferences where scored review and proceedings are the deliverable, and the program is built elsewhere. | The workflow ends at the decision, so presenter confirmations, materials, and scheduling need another system, and each edition often starts from a fresh import. | Typically priced per conference on submission volume. |
| Suite modules (Cvent, Cadmium) | The organization already licenses the suite for registration and the module's default workflow fits the committee's process. | Form and workflow changes route through vendor configuration, so committees queue for edits during the busiest weeks of the call. | Bundled into suite licensing. |
| Medical abstract specialists (CTI cOASIS, MiraSmart) | Large medical and scientific congresses with established committee processes and accreditation requirements. | Configuration is generally vendor-managed rather than self-service, and the surrounding speaker operations tend to remain separate. | Quoted per meeting. |
| Sessionboard | Submission is the front of a full program: forms the committee edits itself, multi-round blind review with assignment rules and COI capture, and acceptance flowing into speaker portal, materials, scheduling, poster sessions, and content capture on one record that persists across years. | Built for programs with real review and speaker operations — a thirty-abstract symposium does not need it. | Licensed by meeting and submission volume. |
BEFORE YOU DECIDE
Buyer checklist
- Can the committee change form fields mid-call without filing a vendor ticket?
- Can reviewers be auto-assigned by topic with conflicts of interest excluded, rather than matched by hand?
- Is review genuinely blind where your accreditation or bylaws require it, and can you prove it afterward?
- Does the form collect disclosures, learning objectives, and presentation format at submission, or do those become chase emails?
- Can you run more than one round — a broad screen and then a program-fit pass — without exporting and re-importing?
- At acceptance, do presenter confirmations, bios, headshots, and slides come from the same record?
- Do posters and platform presentations share one pipeline, or does the poster session get its own tool?
- Does submission and reviewer history carry to the next edition so the call starts warm?
- What does the author see? A confusing submission form costs you good abstracts before review begins.
Frequently asked questions
What is abstract submission software?
A system that collects structured abstracts or session proposals from authors, routes them to reviewers for scored evaluation, and records the committee's decisions. Stronger products continue past the decision into presenter confirmation, materials collection, and program scheduling.
Is there free abstract submission software?
Effectively yes, if collection is all you need: Google Forms, Jotform, and similar tools cost nothing and work fine under roughly fifty abstracts with one review round. The ceiling arrives with blind review, reviewer assignment, conflict-of-interest handling, and the acceptance handoff — all of which become manual spreadsheet work.
What is the difference between abstract submission and abstract management software?
Submission describes the front of the process — the author-facing form and the intake. Management usually implies the whole cycle: submission, reviewer assignment, scored and blind rounds, decisions, and often the program build that follows. Vendors use the terms loosely, so it is worth asking where a given product actually stops.
How should abstract review be structured?
Assign reviewers by topic expertise with conflicts excluded, score against a written rubric such as relevance, rigor, clarity, and novelty, and keep review blind where accreditation or bylaws require it. Larger programs run two rounds: a broad screen, then a program-fit pass on the survivors.
What should an abstract submission form collect?
Everything review and program build need, collected once: title, structured abstract body, topic track, preferred presentation format, author and co-presenter details, learning objectives where CE applies, and financial disclosures. Every field left out at submission becomes an email later.
Can abstract submission software handle posters as well as sessions?
It varies, and this is a common gap. Many tools treat posters as an afterthought or push them to a separate ePoster product, which splits one program across two systems. Ask whether poster and platform submissions share a pipeline and whether accepted posters can be published to a gallery.
Does abstract submission software replace a registration platform?
Usually not, and it should not have to. Registration, badges, and housing generally stay on Cvent, RainFocus, or an AMS, while the abstract and program layer runs alongside them with data flowing between the two.
How long does implementation take?
For form builders, hours. For self-service platforms, days to a couple of weeks to configure forms, tracks, and review rounds. For vendor-configured systems, plan in months and work backwards from your call-open date, since configuration queues lengthen in the busy season.