As virtual and hybrid forms become more prevalent in today’s digital world, organizers require tools that are powerful, adaptable & integrated. In 2026, having a competent abstract submission & review system is no longer optional; it is a must. When this system integrates seamlessly with your event delivery platform like Airmeet, you can transfer your focus from firefighting to content, community & attendee experience.
The ideal abstract management system (AMS) transforms chaos into a repeatable routine—allowing you to collect organized submissions, allocate reviewers fairly, perform transparent decision rounds & transfer accepted sessions into your event program without manual rekeying.
This blog is intended for event teams who plan to host virtual-first, hybrid or in-person events in 2026. We will explain what features to look for, how different abstract management systems compare and more.
What is abstract management software (AMS)?
An abstract management system is a specific technology/tool designed to manage the submission lifecycle for conferences & academic gatherings. An abstract management system (AMS) provides the following-
- A submission site where writers can post titles, abstracts, keywords, files and co-author information
- A reviewer interface in which reviewers evaluate anonymised or open submissions, grade them using rubrics and leave comments
- Administrative dashboards for chairs & program managers to appoint reviewers, identify conflicts of interest and make acceptance decisions
- Export tools that convert accepted items into session records, speaker lists or proceedings PDFs
Simply put, an abstract management system (AMS) streamlines the submission, review, decision-making and publication process, reducing manual errors & work.
Why using an AMS matters for virtual & hybrid events in 2026
Virtual & hybrid events established a new requirement i.e. once a submission is accepted, it is rarely more than words or text. Accepted abstracts frequently become the following-
- Live sessions on virtual stages
- The program scheduler has parallel tracks
- Poster entries in an internet gallery
- On-demand recordings or handouts in a content hub
- Metadata for registration systems & speaker biographies
That chain of submission to live delivery is where an AMS can help or hurt. Using the right AMS makes it straightforward to export accepted sessions to a virtual event platform, assign speakers to session hosts and attach presentation files & biographical information.
Using an incorrect tool will require you to re-enter data, coordinate various CSVs and locate missing photos or speaker biographies. Modern AMS platforms prioritize interfaces, bulk exports & APIs—allowing event organizers to connect a submission pipeline straight to the virtual event day.
Aside from integration, adopting an AMS ensures fairness & quality control. Its features like conflict detection, blind review modes, adjustable scoring rubrics and multi-round review procedures enable committees to focus on content rather than process. These aspects are especially crucial for academic & scientific events, where peer review requirements are critical.
Key evaluation criteria—what to score & why?
When evaluating any AMS, assign each criterion a 1-5 rating (1 = poor / missing, 5 = great). Here’s a realistic checklist that explains why each criterion is important & what ‘good’ looks like –
1. Submission form flexibility & conditional logic
It matters because different conferences require varying amounts of metadata, including keywords, funding sources & ethics approvals. If the forms are rigid, you will need workarounds. If the AMS is good, it will have custom fields, conditional visibility, multiple file uploads, versioning & file type validation.
2. Peer-review workflow & reviewer tools
This is important because reviewers want a simple UI that includes established rubrics, conflict-of-interest flags & the option to view a submission’s history. A reliable AMS will have review methods including single/double-blind, multi-stage review, peer-reviewer rubrics, author/chair comments and automated load-balancing.
3. Automation & notifications
This matters because automated deadline reminders, late review prompts & batch decision emails help in decreasing manual chasing. If the AMS is good, it will have configurable automatic emails, scheduled reminders for reviewers and writers & templated batch judgments.
4. Scalability & performance
This is critical because handling a small amount of submissions is not the same as handling large amounts of submissions. Hence, you need a platform that will not slow down or require extensive human administration, regardless of the load. A robust AMS will have bulk upload & export, quick list views, reviewer assignment methods and support for huge attachment sizes.
5. Integration & APIs
This helps you in sending accepted sessions to a virtual platform, your registration system or a mobile app and integrations saves hours of your time. The right AMS will have native connectors, customizable CSV exports and a public API for automated session setup.
6. Agenda & session builder
It matters because beyond acceptance, you must organize sessions into tracks, specify start & end times and define session kinds. Ensure that your AMS offers drag-and-drop program builders, track mapping, room allocation and automatic publication to an event platform or app.
7. Security, privacy & plagiarism detection
Submissions & reviewer comments may include previously unpublished work and data protection & plagiarism checks are important for minimizing reputational harm. A good AMS will have role-based access, secure hosting, optional plagiarism scanning and export controls.
8. Mobile access & author experience
This feature is important because authors frequently upload from phones or tablets and having a cumbersome user interface affects submission rates while increasing help inquiries. A reliable AMS will have mobile-friendly forms, straightforward author dashboards and simple re-submission/versioning.
9. Pricing model & support
Costs vary greatly for per-event, per-submission, per-user or business subscriptions and onboarding/support quality influences time to launch. A dependable AMS will have –
- Pricing tiers that are transparent, with defined restrictions
- Onboarding/support windows included
10. Reporting & analytics
This is important because chairs use acceptance rates, reviewer speed, reviewer load & geographic dispersion to make evidence-based judgments. A solid AMS will have built-in dashboards for reviewer turnaround, acceptance rates and exportable reports.
Score each AMS on these criteria and you will have an evidence-based shortlist suited to your event’s requirements.
Top Abstract Management Systems
Here are the top AMS contenders in 2026-
1. Fourwaves
Fourwaves describes itself as a research-focused conference platform that simplifies abstract submission, peer review, poster galleries and program development. It strives to be an all-in-one academic conference suite with a simple user experience for authors, reviewers & administrators.
It is best for small- to medium-sized academic societies, university conferences, poster sessions and events that value author experience & poster galleries.
Some of its standout features are-
- Academic-focused submission forms & conditional logic for poster versus oral sessions
- Poster gallery & virtual poster viewing that is ideal for virtual/hybrid poster sessions & on-demand content
- Reviewer workspace with score, conflict flags & progress tracking—supports single and double-blind workflows
- Program builder with session mapping that exports program data for publication
Pros-
- Fourwaves academic UX that is designed with research communities in mind and its submission flows & reviewer tools that match scholarly expectations.
- It has poster-first features like strong support for poster galleries & file handling for poster PDFs/multimedia that is good for virtual poster halls.
- It has a clean admin UI that reduces the learning curve for small organizing teams.
Cons-
- While Fourwaves enables exports, major organizations that require extensive CRM or enterprise connectors may find better options elsewhere.
- For highly tailored, multi-round workflows or heavy automation, Fourwaves custom configuration may be constrained in comparison to more flexible enterprise systems.
2. OpenWater
OpenWater promotes a highly customizable abstract management system that includes strong automation, a drag-and-drop form builder, multi-round review workflows, session building & an extensive integration hub. It targets associations & organizations that require a centralized system to manage submissions, evaluations and speaker data.
It is best for mid-to-large associations, enterprises or societies that require customizable forms, complex review rounds, comprehensive email automation & CRM integrations.
Some of its standout features are-
- Drag-and-drop form builder with conditional logic & huge file support that minimizes the need for manual follow-up by authors
- Multi-round review & session builder that enables triage rounds, full peer review and final decision workflows
- Email Wizard/Automation Engine for mass accept/reject messaging, deadline reminders & staged notifications
- Integrations hub that is designed to sync with CRMs & membership systems, which are important for associations
Pros-
- It creates virtually any submission/review sequence you may require and is ideal for sophisticated multi-round academic operations
- It has an built-in email wizard that saves admin time & increases author/reviewer interactions
- It has a strong integration story with CRMs & single sign-on solutions for smooth data flow
Cons-
- It frequently involves more setup time and potentially more implementation assistance
- Its configurable business technologies can be more expensive. Hence, smaller organizations should compare ROI against simpler platforms
3. Ex Ordo
Ex Ordo focuses on intellectual events & prioritizes reviewer progress tracking, automated reminders and convenient scheduling. It is designed for editorial committees & research societies that need strong peer review capabilities.
It is best for research communities, scholarly groups & conferences that use multi-stage peer review & value a strong reviewer experience.
Some of its standout features are –
- It provides an optimized reviewer workspace for tracking & motivating outstanding reviews, as well as scoring & ranking to enhance decision-making
- It provides notification & batch decision options for sending acceptance/rejection letters straight from the platform
- Its scheduling & mobile app integration facilitate the creation of programs & their availability to guests
Pros-
- It has automated reminders & visibility into reviewer progress that help to eliminate delays and enhance turnaround
- Its administrators & chair report a good administrative experience for academic workflow
- Its built-in reporting facilitates the measurement of acceptance rates & reviewer performance
Cons-
- Depending on the plan, some modern virtual-poster or content hub functions may be limited as compared to specialist virtual platforms
- For large organizations that require CRM integration or complicated membership structures, enterprise systems may offer greater out-of-the-box integrations
4. Oxford Abstracts
Oxford Abstracts targets academic conferences with a robust set of features, including unlimited submissions on certain plans, bespoke emails, quick abstract books, multi-stage submission choices & an interactive poster gallery. It is typically less expensive for societies & medium-sized events.
It is best for mid-sized academic conferences, societies that want a balance of academic features & affordability, events requiring instant abstract books and simple multi-stage workflows.
Some of its standout features are-
- It offers instant abstract books & exportable proceedings, making it ideal for conferences with published proceedings
- It has multiple-stage submissions with optional add-ons
- It has interactive poster gallery & commentary to increase interest after acceptance
Pros-
- Its pricing tiers & academic concentration make it accessible to society
- Its publication options include simple tools for making abstract books & publishing proceedings fast
- It has good author experience – i.e. clear submission guidelines & support resources
Cons-
- Its API or enterprise CRM connectors may be limited or reserved for higher levels
- It has advanced review automation for more complex, huge multi-round review procedures. But some specialized platforms may provide more detailed reviewer assignment automation
5. Dryfta
Dryfta provides an abstract management module that prioritizes automation, matchmaking, campaign automation & equitable reviewer workload sharing. Its recent revisions emphasize matchmaking & large-scale campaign sending.
It is best for events that require automated reviewer assignment, meeting matchmaking & integrated campaign tools. Dryfta is also ideal for medium-sized associations with networking goals.
Some of its standout features are-
- It has automated abstract assignment by type & track, as well as smart matchmaking for networking
- It has campaign & notification features for massive outreach
Pros-
- It has reduced manual assignment labor for organizers & improved reviewer load balance
- Its matchmaking and networking enhances value beyond abstracts by allowing attendee/reviewer matching elements
One of the biggest con of Dryfta is its automation & matchmaking; if you require the cleanest academic reviewer UX or the most polished poster gallery, you will have to combine tools or test carefully.
How Airmeet’s Features Can Power a Seamless Abstract Management System
When comparing the finest abstract management systems for 2026, it’s important for us to evaluate not only the submission and review protocols, but also how well your selected AMS connects with a virtual event platform where accepted abstracts, posters & sessions will be distributed.
Airmeet gives a solid basis here. While Airmeet is not a standalone abstract submission & review system, it does provide a comprehensive set of features that can be used to supplement any AMS, making the integration process easier & assisting organizers in providing a world-class experience for authors, reviewers and attendees.
1. Networking Lounges for Reviewers and Authors
One of the distinguishing elements of Airmeet is its AI-powered social lounge and networking capabilities. After peer review choices have been made, authors & reviewers can continue their conversations in designated lounges, table discussions or one-on-one sessions. Moreover, after the abstract review cycle is completed, Airmeet transforms them into a hub for collaboration, feedback & relationship-building.
2. Powerful Analytics Dashboards
A primary problem for conference organizers is tracking engagement with accepted content. Airmeet offers sophisticated analytics dashboards that track attendance, session participation & networking connections. When Airmeet is combined with any abstract submission & review system, these insights provide organizers with a 360° picture — allowing you to fine-tune future call-for-abstracts & increase your event ROI.
3. Seamless Integrations & API Flexibility
Airmeet provides native integrations with various tools & custom integration options as well to accommodate users needs. Using API access, webhooks & data import/export options, organizers may immediately sync accepted abstracts, speakers and session details to their event agenda. This saves hours of manual re-entry & ensures data accuracy across all platforms.
4. Personalized Emails for Authors and Attendees
Personalization is essential when expressing decisions to authors or directing attendees through the program. Airmeet allows organizers to send individualized emails to different participant groups—ranging from “Congratulations on your abstract acceptance” to reminders regarding poster presentations or live Q&A sessions. These emails serve to prevent confusion, missing deadlines & lend a professional touch to the entire submission process.
Conclusion
Choosing the right abstract management system entails two things i.e. matching your workflow requirements & ensuring that the system works well with the rest of your event stack—particularly your virtual platform. We hope that this comprehensive guide will empower you to identify your exact needs and find the ideal AMS for you.
FAQs
Single-blind reviewers see author names while writers do not see them whereas double-blind means that neither party sees the other’s identity. AMS systems enable these modes by suppressing or displaying author metadata fields in the reviewer view.
Indeed, while some AMS systems interact with third-party services, others include integrated plagiarism detection algorithms and by detecting unoriginal text, these AMS features aid in maintaining academic integrity. To guarantee vendor alignment, make plagiarism detection a clear & necessary criteria in your RFP if your institution places a high priority on it.
