Peer review
A review process the committee can explain afterwards
Scientific meetings are judged on whether decisions were fair, documented and free of unmanaged conflicts. Eventumbot keeps assignment, comments and outcomes on the same abstract records collected at intake.
Assignment that respects expertise and conflicts
Chairs allocate work by topic, workload and declared conflicts. Reviewers see only what they are entitled to see. The trail of who was asked, who declined and who completed stays with the paper.
Conflicts
Co-authorship, institutional and custom conflict rules before scoring starts.
Confidential comments
Committee-only notes sit beside author-facing decision text.
Decisions
Accept, reject, reformat or invited revision — issued from the same record.
Built for a committee, not a single editor
Programme chairs, topic leads and society officers often share the load. Eventumbot supports that split without turning the process into an email fork. The blog essay on peer-review workflow for academic conferences goes deeper on the operational sequence.
Decisions should feed the timetable
Once outcomes exist, accepted work is available to the programme builder. That is the difference between a review tool and a conference operations layer.
Frequently asked questions
It is conference peer review: faster cycles, presentation types, and a committee that must also build a timetable. Journal-style workflows are a different product category.
Yes. Author-facing letters and committee-only material are separate. Configure what each role can see before the call closes.
Solutions
Book a demo
Eventumbot peer review: reviewer assignment, conflict handling, confidential comments and decisions that scientific committees can defend.