Briefing abstract reviewers without directing decisions
The scientific committee has named its reviewers, and the secretariat now has to explain how review will run without telling anyone what to think.
The short answer
Brief reviewers on process only: what they receive, by when, on which form, and who to ask. The scientific committee chair owns the criteria, the scoring and every accept or reject decision.
The secretariat's job is to make the process identical for every reviewer and to record what was sent, so the committee can stand behind its decisions.
What the secretariat may brief, and what it may not
Process belongs to the secretariat. Judgement belongs to the committee.
If a question starts with whether an abstract is good enough, route it to the committee chair, not to the project team.
| Secretariat briefs | Committee chair briefs or decides |
|---|---|
| Deadline, number of abstracts per reviewer, submission portal or file route | Scoring criteria and what each score means |
| How to declare a conflict and who receives the declaration | Whether a conflict excludes a reviewer from an abstract |
| Format of the review form and how comments are returned | How to treat borderline, off-topic or duplicate abstracts |
| Confidentiality of abstracts as set by the committee | Whether abstracts are anonymised and how |
| Who to contact for access or technical problems | Final acceptance, presentation type and rejection wording |
Sequence for a reviewer briefing
- Ask the chair to confirm the criteria, the scoring scale and the anonymisation rule in writing before anything is sent.
- Prepare one briefing note and one review form, and send the same version to every reviewer on the same day.
- Hold a short call or send a recorded walkthrough for process questions, and invite the chair to cover criteria.
- Log every reviewer question and who answered it. Anything about content goes to the chair, and the answer goes to all reviewers.
- Check reviewer progress against the deadline and report counts, not opinions, to the chair.
Where secretariats drift into scientific decisions
- Pre-sorting abstracts into strong and weak piles before reviewers see them.
- Re-wording a reviewer's comment before it goes back to the author.
- Telling a reviewer that a topic is already well covered in the programme.
- Reassigning an abstract because a reviewer scored it low.
Worked example · Fictional example
A fictional society briefs 18 reviewers
Fictional organisation and figures, for illustration only.
Persatuan Fiktif Sains Klinik has 18 volunteer reviewers and 120 abstracts. The chair confirms a four-point scale and double-blind review, and the secretariat sends one note and one form to all 18 on a Monday.
Two reviewers ask whether case reports are in scope. The secretariat does not answer. It forwards the question to the chair, who replies to everyone the next day, and the log records both messages.
Use this yourself
Reviewer briefing note: process section
Copy this into your briefing note. Fields marked chair are filled in by the scientific committee chair, not the secretariat.
- Review period: opens (date) and closes (date), and how late returns are handled (chair to confirm):
- Number of abstracts assigned to each reviewer:
- Scoring criteria and scale (chair):
- Anonymisation rule (chair):
- How to declare a conflict of interest, and who receives it:
- Confidentiality expectations set by the committee (chair):
- Where to return forms, and the file naming rule:
- Who answers process questions and who answers content questions:
- What happens after review: the committee meets on (date) and the secretariat does not change any score:
Open the tool: Conference materials and translation-version checker
Handle it in-house, or bring in help?
Your team can usually handle this when
- A small committee reviews fewer than a few dozen abstracts and the chair is responsive.
- The submission system already assigns abstracts and collects forms.
Outside planning help earns its fee when
- Reviewers sit in several countries or time zones and the briefing, forms and reminders need coordinating.
- The secretariat is new to scholarly review and wants a boundary map agreed with the chair before reviewers are contacted.
Need the review process coordinated?
A conference project lead can set up the reviewer timeline, forms, question log and reminders, and keep process and scientific questions on separate routes. Scoring, acceptance and anything about content stay with your scientific committee.
Questions organisers ask
Can the secretariat tell reviewers which abstracts to prioritise?
Only if the committee chair has decided it. Priority by deadline or by topic area is a committee decision, and the secretariat passes the instruction on unchanged.
Should reviewers see each other's scores?
That is a committee policy question. Ask the chair, record the answer in the briefing note and apply it to every reviewer in the same way.
Who handles a reviewer who misses the deadline?
The secretariat chases and reports the count to the chair. The chair decides whether to extend, reassign or proceed without that review.
Related resources
Content record: Draft. Written from the cited sources and checked by automated rules; not yet independently reviewed.