Peer reviewing is the professional evaluation of submitted abstracts or papers by independent experts (peers) from the same scientific community. It forms the basis for selecting presentations and posters and ensures the scientific quality of a conference program.
Also known as: Expert review, peer review
Typical for: Scientific congresses, professional conferences
Methods: Single-blind, double-blind, open review
What is peer reviewing?
In peer reviewing, a submitted paper is evaluated by qualified experts from the same community before being accepted into a conference program. It is the primary quality assurance tool in the scientific conference sector, adapting the process familiar from academic journals to the context of conferences.
Within the framework of abstract management, the review process follows directly after the call for papers and provides the basis for the subsequent scheduling.
Review methods
- Single-blind: Reviewers know the identity of the authors, but not vice versa. The most common form.
- Double-blind: Both parties are anonymized. Reduces bias, but requires careful anonymization of the texts.
- Open review: Identities and evaluations are transparent. Promotes accountability, but can make critical evaluations more difficult.
- Triple-blind: Even the program committee members do not know the reviewers – the rarest and strictest form.
The review process
- Assignment: Submitted abstracts are assigned to reviewers based on subject area, language skills, and availability – ideally with multiple reviewers per submission. Converia facilitates this with automatic assignment based on thematic expertise and workload, simplifying the handling of hundreds of submissions and dozens of authors.
- Conflict check: Conflicts of interest (co-authorship, institutional affiliation, personal relationships) are checked and excluded.
- Evaluation: Reviewers assess submissions using defined criteria (relevance, originality, methodology, clarity) on scorecards.
- Aggregation: The evaluations are consolidated and weighted by the program committee.
- Decision: Acceptance, rejection, or revision – with standardized feedback provided to the submitters.
Quality assurance in peer reviewing
- At least two, ideally three reviews per submission
- Clear, documented evaluation criteria
- Systematic identification and resolution of conflicts of interest
- Careful verification of anonymization (self-citations can reveal identities)
- Arbitration process for highly divergent evaluations
- Documentation of all decisions for future traceability
Peer reviewing in Converia
Converia provides a configurable review module: multi-stage processes, anonymized evaluation, scorecards with individually definable criteria, automatic assignment to reviewers based on areas of expertise, and complete documentation of all evaluations.
Ensuring scientific quality in a structured way
With Converia, you can map even complex, multi-stage review processes entirely digitally – including anonymization, conflict checks, and automated speaker communication.
- Abstract Management – Abstracts / Program / Speakers
- Call for Papers (CfP) – Abstracts / Program / Speakers
- Scheduling (Program Planning) – Abstracts / Program / Speakers
Multi-stage reviews, scorecards, and automatic reviewer assignment – directly within the abstract workflow.