Skip to content
Confereasy

The peer review workflow

Conference peer review software, without the coordination overload

Spend less time assigning abstracts and relaying updates. Confereasy routes submissions to your committee, lets invited-session organizers handle their own reviews, and keeps you informed without making you the go-between.

Create your conference See the process

Start for free in draft mode

An author submits an abstract

Presentation type, content and category

Invited sessions

Delegate invitations and reviews to session organizers. Receive a session ready to schedule.

Scientific committee

Get abstracts to the right experts automatically, so your committee can focus on the science.

Two review paths. The same clear status for authors.

01 / Configure and collect submissions

You configure the process. Attendees just submit.

Set up your submission requirements once. Attendees get a form that follows your settings, and one attendee portal to manage their abstract.

You

Define what authors can submit

Presentation types
Create oral presentations, posters or any other presentation types your conference needs.
Plain text or LaTeX
Choose plain text for straightforward abstracts, or enable LaTeX when your authors need mathematical notation.
Topic categories
Authors choose a topic so their abstract reaches committee members with the right expertise.

The attendee

The attendee signs up, submits and returns when needed

  1. 1

    Creates an account in the attendee portal

    The author creates their account in the attendee portal for your conference.

  2. 2

    Completes the configured submission form

    They choose a presentation type and category, enter their abstract and submit it.

  3. 3

    Returns to edit or check the status

    Attendees return to their attendee portal to edit their abstract while editing is open, or check its current status at any time.

02 / Share the scientific work

Two routes from submission to programme

Share the review workload without losing oversight. Use your scientific committee, invited sessions, or both in the same conference.

The invited-session route

Reduce the workload on your scientific committee.

Session organizers handle their own authors and abstracts, so you receive a session ready to schedule.

  1. 01

    Session organizer

    Submits a session proposal

    The attendee proposes an invited session from their attendee portal for your team to review.

  2. 02

    You

    Review and approve the proposal

    Accept the sessions that fit your conference. Approval unlocks a private author invitation link for the session organizer.

  3. 03

    Session organizer

    Invites authors, reviews and sets the order

    Shares the private link with selected authors, reviews their abstracts and sets the presentation order. You receive a session ready to schedule.

The scientific-committee route

Get abstracts to the right experts, without assigning them one by one.

Set up your committee by expertise. Category leads oversee reviews and make final decisions for their topics; they can also invite reviewers they trust to share the workload.

Scientific committee

Assign expertise by category

Category lead Reviewer
Example category assignments for three committee members
Topic Robert Brenda Miguel
Ecology Category lead Reviewer Not assigned
Energy Category lead Not assigned Reviewer
Health Not assigned Category lead Reviewer
Scientific committee

Double blind

Authors and evaluators do not see each other's identity.

Category leads
Identities hidden
On
Reviewers
Identities hidden
On
Separate double-blind settings for category leads and reviewers.

Automatic reviewer assignment

Each submission follows your category assignments straight to the relevant committee inboxes.

03 / Evaluation and decisions

Final decisions, backed by your committee's reviews.

Keep evaluation and decision-making connected. Reviewers rate abstracts and recommend a verdict; category leads use those assessments to make the final decision.

Your committee sees what needs attention at a glance

Each member has one inbox for their assigned abstracts, with pending work, review progress and scores at a glance.

Review inbox

Pending (6) Done (176)
  • Oral presentation Energy
    Machine learning for resilient energy systems

    K. Hofmann, D. Kovacs

    Reviews: 0/1 Pending Awaiting review
  • Oral presentation Health
    Biosensors for rapid pathogen detection

    D. Nyon, A. Thorne

    Reviews: 1/1 Pending 4.0/5
  • Oral presentation Ecology
    Coastal ecosystems under a changing climate

    J. Moreira, R. Silva

    Reviews: 1/1 Pending 4.3/5
  • Oral presentation Ecology
    Atmospheric monitoring with satellite data

    N. Garrett, H. Cole

    Reviews: 1/1 Accepted 3.7/5
This example shows a non-blind review.

The evidence behind each decision

Category leads read the evaluations and see which reviews are still missing before accepting or rejecting an abstract. Internal committee comments stay private.

Final decision

Reviews

Miguel Torres4.3/5
Accepted
Methodology quality
5 out of 5
Originality and innovation
5 out of 5
Writing clarity
3 out of 5

Brenda di MarcoNo review submitted

Verdict

  • AcceptedSelected
  • Accepted (conditional)
  • Rejected

Internal comments (optional)

Only the committee sees these comments, not the author.

Decision ready to apply
The category lead makes the final decision.

04 / Keep everyone informed

Know where reviews stand, without chasing updates.

Check the status of every abstract at any time. When you need the full story, its activity history shows who did what and when, from submission to final decision.

Activity timeline

  1. Submitted

    by Mike Svenson

    53 minutes ago

  2. Status suggested: Accepted

    by Miguel Torres

    10 minutes ago

    4.0/5

  3. Accepted

    by Robert Wilshire

    Just now

An abstract activity timeline, from submission through the reviewer recommendation to acceptance.

Automatic decision notifications

Authors are automatically notified of the decision on their abstract, in both review routes.

Submission status in the attendee portal

Authors can check the status of their abstract in their attendee portal at any time.

FAQ

Frequently asked questions

How are abstracts assigned to the scientific committee?
Authors choose a category when submitting. Confereasy uses your category assignments to show each abstract to the category leads and reviewers for that topic. You do not need to assign reviewers abstract by abstract; configure category coverage before opening submissions.
Can we use invited sessions and a scientific committee together?
Yes. Enable invited-session proposals if you want to offer that route alongside regular submissions. Once your team accepts a session proposal, its organizer invites authors, reviews their abstracts and sets the presentation order. Regular submissions follow the scientific committee route.
Can we enable double-blind review?
Yes. You can enable double-blind review separately for category leads and reviewers. With it enabled, author and evaluator identities are hidden from each other in that review workflow. Authors should also avoid identifying themselves in the abstract text and any uploaded files.
Who makes the final decision on a submission?
In the scientific committee route, reviewers submit evaluations and suggest a verdict; category leads make the final decision. In an accepted invited session, the session organizer reviews its submissions. Authors receive automatic decision notifications and can check their submission status in their attendee portal.

Your conference reviews, easier to manage

Start for free with Confereasy. Submissions, reviews and decisions, all in one place.

Create your conference View pricing