By Insiya, Eventify · 13 min read
Key Takeaways
- The best abstract management software centralizes the entire submission and review process, reducing errors and saving time.
- Essential features include customizable submission forms, multi-round blind reviews, automated communications, schedule building, and robust reporting.
- Integration with event management systems ensures seamless data flow between submission, registration, and scheduling.
- Choosing the right tool depends on your event size, review complexity, and whether you need standalone software or an integrated event management platform.
Picking the wrong abstract management software can end up costing you weeks of hand work, plenty of annoyed reviewers, and even lost speaker submissions. The better software runs the whole call for papers flow automatically from the submission stage to the final scheduling, so you save time and cut down on mistakes that quietly pile up.
We evaluated 12 leading abstract management systems across six key criteria to identify the best tools that deliver real results. Here's what you need to know.
We evaluated every tool against six key touchstones: full abstract lifecycle coverage, reviewer comfort, applicant experience, connection to event management systems, pricing clarity, and independent user feedback. Testing was done from both an organizer viewpoint and a reviewer viewpoint, checking how things feel day to day. We ran pricing modeling at submission levels of 50, 200, and 500 abstracts and reviewed G2 scores. Only platforms that handle the entire abstract management process made the shortlist.
What Is Abstract Management Software
Abstract management software acts as a centralized place to run the whole abstract lifecycle, from the submission form, into reviewer assignment, scoring, decision, and then scheduling, all within one connected system. It replaces error-prone email chains and clunky spreadsheets with a streamlined workflow that supports event organizers, conference chairs, and review committees.
Without dedicated software, common issues arise at each stage:
| Stage | What It Involves | What Goes Wrong Without Software |
| Submission | Speakers submit proposals via a form | Inconsistent formats, missing information, email chaos |
| Assignment | Submissions distributed to reviewers | Manual tracking, missed assignments, reviewer conflicts |
| Review & Scoring | Reviewers evaluate and score each submission | Spreadsheet version control, lost feedback, bias risk |
| Decision | Accept, reject, or waitlist each submission | No audit trail, inconsistent criteria, communication delays |
| Scheduling | Accepted abstracts placed into event agenda | Double bookings, theme misalignment, last-minute changes |
| Communication | Speakers notified of outcomes | Manual emails, missed notifications, unhappy applicants |
⚠️ Organizations managing more than 20 submissions via email and spreadsheets consistently report missed deadlines, reviewer conflicts, and communication failures. The threshold for needing dedicated abstract management software is lower than most planners expect.
What Are the Key Features to Look For in Abstract Management Software Features?
The features you need depend on how complex your review is. A 30-submission academic conference needs different capabilities than a 500-submission corporate call for papers. That said, six features are essential for any serious abstract management platform.
1Submission Form Builder
Look for drag-and-drop customization with support for custom fields, file uploads (PDFs, presentations, audio files), conditional logic, and embedding on your website. Customizable submission forms reduce inconsistent submissions and improve the applicant experience.
.png)
Publishing the submission form and setting application and review dates on Eventify.
2Reviewer Assignment and Management
Assign reviewers to specific submissions, manage conflicts of interest, track progress, and send automated reminders. Automated submission allocation saves organizers significant time.
💡 Pro Tip: Always assign at least two reviewers per submission to avoid bias and ensure defensible decisions.
.png)
Setting reviewer distribution and adding reviewers on Eventify.
3Scoring and Evaluation System
Use standardized scoring criteria, multi-round review capability, blind review options, and aggregate scoring visibility to support fair and informed decisions.
.png)
Setting up scoring criteria and point ranges on Eventify.
4Communication Tools
Automate notifications for submission receipt, review progress, and decisions with customizable email templates to maintain clear, consistent communication.
⚠️ Applicant communication is the most visible part of the abstract management process. Slow or inconsistent notifications damage speaker confidence before your event begins.
5Schedule Builder
Move accepted abstracts directly into the event agenda using drag-and-drop tools. Manage sessions, room assignments, and avoid double bookings, all ideally within the same platform.
Placing accepted abstracts into the event schedule on Eventify.
6Reporting and Analytics
Track submission volumes, reviewer completion rates, scoring distributions, acceptance rates, and trends over time via event analytics. Without reporting, it's impossible to identify process bottlenecks.
How We Selected and Evaluated These 12 Abstract Management Software Tools
We evaluated every tool against the same six criteria; no platform was included based on brand recognition alone.
Criteria 1: Full Abstract Lifecycle Coverage
This criterion checks if the software handles each stage of the abstract process, from first submission through reviewer assignment, scoring, decision, and final scheduling. A platform that covers the whole cycle cuts down the need for several separate tools, so there's less manual moving of data and fewer mistakes. Partial solutions create workflow gaps that feel clunky and lead to inefficiency. Full lifecycle coverage also keeps communication steady and preserves audit trails, giving more transparency and accountability across the whole run.
Criteria 2: Reviewer Experience
Reviewer usability is critical, because reviewers are often volunteers with limited time. The software needs to make it simple to reach assigned abstracts quickly, use scoring criteria without headaches, send feedback, and track progress. Blind review support, conflict-of-interest detection, and automated reminders make things fairer while improving efficiency. If reviewer UX is poor, it's frequently the reason the whole process breaks down.
Criteria 3: Applicant Experience
The submission system should simplify the process for authors, minimizing steps and supporting features like auto-save and clear confirmation messages. Conditional logic in forms helps tailor questions based on previous answers, and clear progress indicators reduce confusion and abandonment. A well-designed submission process increases submission quality and supports organizers in managing content efficiently.
Criteria 4: Integration With Event Management Systems
Does accepted abstract data flow automatically into event registration, scheduling, and speaker management, or require manual exports? Platforms with automatic data flow reduce errors and save time by eliminating manual transfers. Integration also supports hybrid conferences by synchronizing content in real time across virtual and in-person platforms. Systems lacking integration often cause data silos, leading to double bookings and communication delays.
Criteria 5: Pricing Transparency and True Cost of Ownership
We modeled total cost at 50, 200, and 500 submissions including per-submission fees, implementation work, licenses, and add-ons. Opaque pricing gets flagged so organizers can grasp the real financial commitment. If a platform charges per submission, cost can climb fast as volume grows, so flat-fee or tiered pricing tends to be more predictable, and often kinder to your event ROI, for larger events.
| Tool | Pricing Model | Entry Price | Per-Submission Fee | Free Plan |
| Eventify | Flat monthly fee | ~$50/month | No | Yes |
| OpenWater | Annual license | On request | No | No |
| Eventscribe | Annual license | On request | No | No |
| Ex Ordo | Per event | On request | No | No |
| Oxford Abstracts | Per event | ~£149/event | No | Limited |
| Cvent | Enterprise contract | On request | No | No |
| Whova | Per event | On request | No | No |
| Fourwaves | Per event | ~£100/event | No | Limited |
| Submittable | Usage-based | On request | Yes | No |
| Reviewr | Annual license | On request | No | No |
| AwardForce | Annual license | On request | No | No |
| Dryfta | Per event | On request | No | Limited |
Criteria 6: Independent User Reviews
We analyzed G2 scores and review volume as signals of real-world reliability. Platforms with fewer than 10 reviews are flagged.
| Tool | G2 Score | G2 Reviews |
| Eventify | 4.8 | 70 |
| OpenWater | 4.5 | 151 |
| Eventscribe | 4.3 | 21 |
| Ex Ordo | 4.8 | 3 |
| Oxford Abstracts | — | — |
| Cvent | 4.3 | 2,316 |
| Whova | 4.8 | 1,920 |
| Fourwaves | 4.8 | 51 |
| Submittable | 4.5 | 168 |
| Reviewr | 4.4 | 14 |
| AwardForce | 4.7 | 290 |
| Dryfta | 4.8 | 35 |
Master Comparison: 12 Best Abstract Management Systems at a Glance
| Tool | Best For | Multi-Round Review | Blind Review | Cost Level | Free Plan |
| Eventify | Associations, integrated EMS | Yes | Yes | Low | Yes |
| OpenWater | Awards and abstracts | Yes | Yes | Medium | No |
| Eventscribe | Associations and nonprofits | Yes | Yes | Medium | No |
| Ex Ordo | Academic conferences | Yes | Yes | Medium | No |
| Oxford Abstracts | Academic simplicity | Yes | Yes | Low–Medium | Limited |
| Cvent | Large corporate events | Yes | Yes | Very High | No |
| Whova | Mid-size conferences | Yes | No | Medium | No |
| Fourwaves | Scientific, academic | Yes | Yes | Low–Medium | Limited |
| Submittable | Corporate entries | Yes | Yes | Medium | No |
| Reviewr | Applicant engagement | Yes | Yes | Medium | No |
| AwardForce | Custom submission needs | Yes | Yes | Medium | No |
| Dryfta | Small academic events | Yes | Yes | Low | Limited |
"The number one thing I tell associations shopping for abstract management software is to ignore the feature list for a minute and ask one question: where does the accepted speaker's data go next? If the answer is 'you export a spreadsheet,' you haven't actually solved the problem, you've just moved it."
Hussain Fakhruddin, founder of Eventify
The 12 Best Abstract Management Software Tools Reviewed in Depth
Each review follows the same format. The Verdict summarizes who the tool is best for and who should look elsewhere.
1Eventify: Best for Associations Needing Abstract Management Inside a Full Event System
🏆 Verdict: Ideal for associations and nonprofits running 3 to 20 events per year who want abstract management connected to registration, scheduling, and attendee management without enterprise complexity.
What It Does: Eventify manages submission forms, reviewer assignment, scoring, automated notifications, and schedule building, all integrated with its full event management system. Abstract data flows directly into registration, event apps, and attendee management.
What It Does Well:
- Accepted speakers automatically appear in the event program without manual data transfer
- Flat-fee pricing with no per-submission charges means predictable costs at any volume
- Supports hybrid and virtual conferences alongside abstract management
Limitations:
- Not designed for highly complex peer review workflows with 500+ submissions
- Academic-specific features like ORCID integration are limited
- Best suited for events under 300 submissions
Not For: Large academic conferences requiring advanced multi-round peer review or academic publishing integrations.
💡 Pro Tip: Eventify's integrated database eliminates copy-paste errors by auto-populating speaker profiles, session descriptions, and agendas from accepted abstracts.
2OpenWater: Best End-to-End Abstract Management for Associations and Higher Education
🏆 Verdict: The most complete standalone abstract management platform for complex multi-round reviews, less suited for teams needing integrated event management.
What It Does: Covers submission, multi-round review, automated communications, schedule building, and reporting. Also manages awards, grants, and scholarships in the same platform.
What It Does Well:
- Drag-and-drop form and schedule builders require no coding
- Average customer support response time of 10 minutes
- Integrates with 65+ systems including iMIS, Salesforce, and Higher Logic
Limitations:
- Requires separate event management tools for registration and attendee management
- Pricing on request; higher cost than simpler alternatives
- Steeper learning curve
Not For: Small or first-time conference teams needing a simple solution.
💡 Pro Tip: OpenWater's multi-program capability allows running abstracts and awards in one platform, eliminating extra licenses and reviewer training.
3Eventscribe: Best for Associations and Nonprofits With Small Staff
🏆 Verdict: Tailored for associations and nonprofits needing abstract management within a full event management system designed for smaller teams.
What It Does: Customizable submission forms, review management, notifications, scoring, and reporting integrated with Cadmium's broader event management suite.
What It Does Well:
- Designed for small staff and volunteer reviewers
- Abstract management alongside registration and engagement tools
- Supports many file formats
Limitations:
- Less suited for corporate event use cases
- Interfaces can feel dated
- Learning curve for new users
Not For: Corporate event teams or academic conferences needing advanced peer review.
⚠️ Eventscribe focuses on associations and nonprofits; evaluate OpenWater or Cvent if your event differs.
4Ex Ordo: Best for Academic and Research Conferences
🏆 Verdict: The strongest platform for academic and research conferences needing deep peer review workflows.
What It Does: Submission management, peer review with conflict-of-interest detection, blind and multi-round review, and schedule building tailored for scholarly workflows.
What It Does Well:
- Sophisticated peer review workflows
- Automatic conflict-of-interest detection
- Smooth scheduling grouping papers by theme and session
Limitations:
- Limited features for non-academic events
- Integration with general event management is less developed
- Pricing on request
Not For: Corporate or association events without peer review.
💡 Pro Tip: Conflict-of-interest detection flags reviewer-submission relationships based on co-authorship and affiliation, reducing review errors.
5Oxford Abstracts: Best for Academic Conferences Prioritising Simplicity
🏆 Verdict: Easiest academic abstract platform for reviewer simplicity, less suited for deep customization or analytics.
What It Does: Submission management, user-friendly review forms, one-click status updates, blind review, and built-in ticketing.
What It Does Well:
- Simplest reviewer interface
- One-click submission status updates save communication time
- Built-in ticketing integrates registration and presentations
Limitations:
- Limited customization options
- Basic reporting
- Less suitable for non-academic events
Not For: Organizations needing advanced workflows or detailed analytics.
💡 Pro Tip: One-click status updates eliminate the common time sink of manual acceptance and rejection emails.
6Cvent: Best for Large Corporate Conferences
🏆 Verdict: Feature-rich enterprise solution for large organizations embedded in the Cvent ecosystem.
What It Does: Call for Papers module integrated with Cvent's event management platform, registration, mobile apps, and venue sourcing.
What It Does Well:
- Seamless integration with the full Cvent suite
- Enterprise-grade security and compliance
- Scales to thousands of submissions
Limitations:
- Highest cost
- Steep learning curve
- Overkill for events under 200 submissions; not designed for academic peer review
Not For: Small or academic events, or teams not using Cvent.
⚠️ Evaluate OpenWater or Eventify before Cvent if you lack existing Cvent investment.
7Whova: Best for Mid-Size Conferences Needing a Straightforward Call for Speakers
🏆 Verdict: Solid mid-market option for mid-size events with straightforward review needs.
What It Does: Call for Speakers module with submission forms, abstract rating, and progress tracking, integrated with Whova's conference app and engagement tools.
What It Does Well:
- Integration with the conference app auto-populates accepted speakers
- Good value for mid-size conferences
- Easy setup for first-time users
Limitations:
- Limited analytics and reporting
- No double-blind review
- Limited customization
Not For: Academic conferences needing advanced peer review.
💡 Pro Tip: Using Whova's app integration eliminates manual data transfer errors.
8Fourwaves: Best for Scientific and Academic Events With Poster Sessions
🏆 Verdict: Best for scientific conferences with poster and oral presentations.
What It Does: Abstract submission, peer review, scientific committee collaboration, dynamic agenda planning, and poster session management.
What It Does Well:
- Most developed poster session management
- Collaborative reviewer tools
- Dynamic agenda updates with accepted/rejected abstracts
Limitations:
- Limited corporate or nonprofit applicability
- Integration is less advanced than some competitors
Not For: Corporate or association events without poster needs.
💡 Pro Tip: Dynamic agenda automatically adjusts when speakers cancel, reducing manual rescheduling.
9Submittable: Best for Corporate Calls for Entries
🏆 Verdict: Strongest for corporate organizations prioritizing fast launch and integration.
What It Does: Manages abstracts, grants, and awards with custom permissions, multi-round review, and applicant collaboration.
What It Does Well:
- 89% of customers launch new programs in under two weeks
- Custom reviewer permissions enhance security
- Applicant collaboration supports co-author submissions
Limitations:
- Not designed for academic peer review
- Limited academic integrations
- Pricing scales with usage
Not For: Academic conferences needing scholarly workflows.
⚠️ Confirm abstract-specific features meet your needs before relying on Submittable's broader reputation.
10Reviewr: Best for Increasing Applicant Participation
🏆 Verdict: Best when low submission volume and applicant engagement are primary challenges.
What It Does: Focused on applicant engagement with individual profiles, supplemental requests, and auto-assignment to reduce bias.
What It Does Well:
- Average 31% increase in participation
- Organized applicant profiles with communications
- Review auto-assignment speeds decisions
Limitations:
- Less configurable review workflows
- Pricing on request
- Limited independent reviews
Not For: Teams with high submission volume needing complex review.
📊 Note: Reviewr's documented 31% participation increase is the strongest evidence-based outcome among these platforms.
11AwardForce: Best for Non-Traditional Submission Types
🏆 Verdict: Most flexible for calls including videos, portfolios, or creative work.
What It Does: Supports traditional and non-conventional submissions with auto-save forms and a scoring audit matrix.
What It Does Well:
- Handles video and portfolio submissions naturally
- Auto-save prevents lost submissions
- Scoring audit matrix ensures review transparency
Limitations:
- Complex setup
- Pricing on request
- Less suited for high-volume academic peer review
Not For: Text-only academic abstract calls.
💡 Pro Tip: Auto-save prevents lost proposals from session timeouts or connectivity issues.
12Dryfta: Best for Academic Institutions on a Limited Budget
🏆 Verdict: Most affordable academic option for small institutions with basic needs.
What It Does: Centralized abstract management, review, decision-making, and registration at a lower price point.
What It Does Well:
- Lowest cost among dedicated platforms
- Covers essential workflows without complexity
- Integrated registration reduces tool count
Limitations:
- Struggles with large or complex events
- Exports limited to PDF and CSV
- Fewer integrations than competitors
Not For: Large or corporate events needing advanced features.
⚠️ Limited export formats can hinder data transfer to scheduling or CRM tools.
Which Abstract Management Software Is Right for You? A Decision Guide
The right platform matches your organization type, submission volume, review complexity, and integration needs.
| Your Situation | Recommended Tool | Why |
| Association or nonprofit, integrated EMS | Eventify | Flat fee, connected registration & scheduling |
| Complex multi-round review, 100+ submissions | OpenWater | Most complete standalone abstract management |
| Association or nonprofit, full EMS in one | Eventscribe | Purpose-built for the sector |
| Academic peer review, scholarly workflow | Ex Ordo | Sophisticated peer review capabilities |
| Academic conference, reviewer simplicity | Oxford Abstracts | Easiest interface, transparent pricing |
| Large corporate conference, existing Cvent | Cvent | Enterprise integration, scales well |
| Mid-size conference, existing Whova | Whova | Integrated with conference app |
| Scientific conference with poster sessions | Fourwaves | Best poster session management |
| Corporate calls for entries, fast launch | Submittable | 89% launch in under two weeks |
| Low submission volume, engagement priority | Reviewr | 31% average participation increase |
| Non-standard submission types | AwardForce | Supports videos, portfolios, creative work |
| Small academic institution, limited budget | Dryfta | Lowest cost dedicated option |
💡 Pro Tip: Running more than three events annually? Integrated EMS platforms like Eventify or Eventscribe usually outperform standalone tools by streamlining workflows across submissions, registration, and scheduling.
Ready to Streamline Your Abstract Management?
Choosing the right software turns your call for papers from a real headache into something far more smooth and automated. First, figure out what your event actually needs, not just the obvious features, then look at a few demos so you can see the workflow happen in real time.
Eventify is built for associations, nonprofits, and corporate event teams who want a simple interface that slots seamlessly into a full event management system. With Eventify, you handle the whole thing, from tailoring submission forms and routing reviews, to shaping conference sessions and managing attendee registration, inside one centralized platform.
The flat-fee pricing helps, and support for hybrid events means it stays useful as your needs grow. On top of that you get automated notifications, drag-and-drop schedule building, and solid data security, so your submission deadline and review timeline stay on track with just a few clicks. If you're also comparing broader event platforms, our guide to the best virtual event platforms covers that ground in more depth.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is abstract management?
Abstract management is the process of collecting, reviewing, scoring, and deciding on submissions (abstracts, papers, posters, or presentations) for a conference or event, then scheduling accepted submissions into the event agenda. Abstract management software automates this entire lifecycle in one connected system.
What is the difference between an abstract management system and abstract submission software?
The terms are largely used interchangeably. Some vendors use "submission software" to emphasize the intake form and applicant-facing side, while "management system" implies the full lifecycle, submission, review, decision, and scheduling. The strongest platforms cover both.
Is there a free abstract management software option?
Several tools on this list offer free or limited free plans, including Eventify, Oxford Abstracts, Fourwaves, and Dryfta. Free tiers typically cap submission volume or feature access, so check the limits against your expected event size before committing.
How much does abstract management software typically cost?
Pricing ranges from flat monthly fees around $50 (Eventify) to per-event fees of $100 to $200 (Fourwaves, Oxford Abstracts) to enterprise contracts priced on request (Cvent, OpenWater). Per-submission pricing models can get expensive quickly at higher volumes, so confirm which model a vendor uses before comparing sticker prices.
Can abstract management software integrate with my existing event platform?
It depends on the tool. Standalone platforms like OpenWater and Ex Ordo integrate with external systems (CRMs, registration tools) but require setup. Integrated platforms like Eventify, Eventscribe, and Cvent handle abstract management and event management natively in one system, with no separate integration step needed.
How many submissions is "too many" for spreadsheets and email?
Around 20 submissions is typically where organizations start reporting missed deadlines, reviewer conflicts, and communication failures when managing the process manually. Below that threshold, a simple form and spreadsheet may still work; above it, dedicated software pays for itself quickly.
.png)
.png)
.jpg)
