[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"content-en-blog\u002Fpeer-review-workflow-academic-conferences":3},{"seo":4,"title":7,"description":8,"publishedAt":9,"updatedAt":10,"author":11,"sections":12,"related":28},{"title":5,"description":6},"Peer review workflow for academic conferences | Eventumbot","How scientific committees assign reviewers, handle conflicts and issue decisions at a conference — without losing the trail between intake and the programme.","Peer review workflow for academic conferences","Conference review is not journal review with a shorter deadline. It has to feed a timetable, protect conflicts, and still finish before the programme goes public.","2026-03-12","2026-06-18","Eventumbot",[13,16,19,22,25],{"heading":14,"body":15},"Start from records, not from a mailbox","If abstracts live in a form tool and comments live in email, the chair cannot answer a simple question: who saw this paper, who recused, and what the author was told. A defensible workflow keeps assignment, scores, committee notes and the decision letter on the same abstract record that intake already created.",{"heading":17,"body":18},"Conflicts before scoring","Co-authors, recent collaborators and same-institution rules should block assignment, not appear as a footnote after a score exists. Conference committees also have custom conflicts: a topic chair who proposed the symposium should not quietly review it. Declare those rules while the call is still open, not the weekend after the deadline.",{"heading":20,"body":21},"Split what authors see from what the committee sees","Author-facing decision text and confidential remarks are different objects. Mixing them in a spreadsheet column is how leaked comments happen. Configure visibility by role: reviewer, topic lead, programme chair, secretariat.",{"heading":23,"body":24},"Decisions have to become sessions","Accept, reject, poster-instead-of-talk, or invited revision only matter if the programme builder can consume the outcome. A review tool that exports a CSV into last year’s timetable is still two products. That join is the reason Eventumbot treats peer review as part of conference operations rather than as a standalone judging app.",{"heading":26,"body":27},"Leave an audit trail the next chair can inherit","Societies rotate officers. The incoming chair should see who declined, who was late, and which papers were discussed in committee, without a handover novel. If your current process cannot survive a new volunteer, it is not a process yet.",[29,32,35],{"label":30,"to":31},"Peer review capability","\u002Ffeatures\u002Fpeer-review",{"label":33,"to":34},"Glossary: peer review","\u002Fglossary\u002Fpeer-review",{"label":36,"to":37},"HackBelgium","\u002Fcustomers\u002Fhackbelgium"]