Menu
A 149-criteria workbook and an 11-page guide. It opens with 11 questions about what you run today, because what you weight matters more than what you list.
Built for associations, societies and non-profits.
Two files, sent straight to your inbox.
No sales call attached. You will get the files and a short follow-up about how to use them.
Used by teams running medical societies, scientific congresses and association annual meetings
Include submission and author handling, peer review and scoring, conflict-of-interest workflow, poster and session scheduling, the program build, integrations and data portability, security and accessibility, and what happens to the content after the event. That last one is what most templates skip, and it decides whether a year of content keeps working once the meeting ends. Write every requirement as something you can watch a vendor do rather than a question they can answer yes to, because every vendor answers yes. This template is 149 criteria across 12 sections, 67 of them Core, with an 11-question audit that decides which sections carry the weight.
The guide is the list of what belongs in an abstract management RFP and why each part is there. The workbook is where you weight it and score vendors against it.
| Section | Criterion | Core | Score |
|---|---|---|---|
| Source | Name the top 15 experts on a topic in under five minutes, without an export | ✓ | 4 |
| Source | Retrieve a submission declined last cycle, topic and submitter intact | ✓ | 3 |
149 criteria across 12 sections, 67 marked Core. Section weights, a scoring model, and a vendor comparison tab.
Can you name the top 15 experts who have spoken on a specific topic across your meetings, webinars and podcasts?
11 pages on what belongs in each of the 12 sections and why it earns its place, then how to weight it, demo it and test it.
Most RFPs get written from a wishlist. This one starts with the system you have now. Answer yes or no. Every no points at the section whose weight should go up.
Audit what you run today
Where submissions live, who touches a reviewer assignment, what happens to a poster after the meeting ends.
Let the answers set your weights
Column F maps every no to the section it affects. 12 sections, weights totalling 100.
Score the Core rows first
67 of the 149 criteria are the ones worth making a vendor demonstrate live rather than answer in a spreadsheet.
Send the demo script before the call
Vendors arrive ready to show the things you actually score, instead of the things they like showing.
Compare on weighted totals
The comparison tab reads off your weights, so the result reflects your program rather than the vendor's strengths.
Structured authorship, peer and blind review, conflict-of-interest disclosure, reviewer assignment and scoring rounds.
Poster numbering, board assignment, author order, poster tours and how all of it reaches the published program.
CE credit claiming, embargo timing, publisher formats and the rights register that decides what you can reuse.
Can a vendor answer yes to every criterion and still be wrong for you? Does any criterion describe a product instead of an outcome? Page 10 has 6 tests worth running on your current template.
What should an RFP for abstract management software include?
Include submission and author handling, peer review and scoring, conflict-of-interest workflow, poster and session scheduling, the program build, integrations and data portability, security and accessibility, and what happens to the content after the event. That last one is what most templates skip, and it decides whether a year of content keeps working once the meeting ends. Write every requirement as something you can watch a vendor do rather than a question they can answer yes to, because every vendor answers yes.
How should an abstract management RFP be weighted?
By where your current process actually fails, not by what sounds important in the abstract. Weight the sections so they total 100 and raise the weight wherever your existing system forces manual work. Deciding weights from an audit of what you run today, rather than from a vendor's framing, is what stops every vendor scoring about the same.
What is the difference between abstract management and call for papers software?
Scale and review rigour. Call for papers tools collect session proposals and run a light review. Abstract management handles academic and scientific submission at volume, with structured authorship, blind or double-blind peer review, conflict-of-interest disclosure, poster handling and often continuing education credit. Associations frequently need the second while describing it as the first.
How many criteria should an abstract management RFP have?
Fewer scored than listed. This workbook holds 149 criteria but marks 67 as Core, the ones worth making a vendor demonstrate live. The rest exist so nothing is forgotten, not so everything is scored. An RFP where every row carries equal weight tells you less than a shorter one that is weighted.
Is this template specific to one vendor?
No. Every criterion is written as an outcome you can watch a vendor perform rather than as a product name, so the same workbook scores anyone in the category. The guide includes 6 tests for checking whether an RFP template is doing that properly.
Do I have to talk to sales to get it?
No. Enter your email and both files arrive immediately. You will get a short follow-up on how to use the workbook and an offer to walk through your audit answers. If that is not useful, ignore it.