Describe your conference and criteria. Makeform creates an abstract review form with a shared rubric, attached comments, and comparable recommendations.
Send completed reviews to Google Sheets, Slack, and Zapier.
Sample prompts for the builder
Choose a review pattern, adapt its criteria, or send the editable example to the Makeform builder.
Audience
Program committee members reviewing research abstracts
Format
Blinded rubric with recommendation
Prompt size
463 chars
Example review structure
Blinded rubric with recommendation
Abstract ID and reviewer ID
Do you have a conflict of interest?
Score originality, methods, and clarity
Comments for the author
Overall recommendation
Suggested routing tags
Strong accept
Discuss
Decline
Define every score. A labeled five-point scale gives reviewers a shared standard.
Step 1
Assign
pair each abstract with qualified reviewers
Step 2
Screen
check conflicts and basic eligibility first
Step 3
Score
apply one rubric and add useful comments
Step 4
Decide
compare recommendations in committee
Consistent review
A structured abstract review form aligns the committee while preserving expert feedback.
Give each criterion its own scale and explain what low and high scores mean.
Place a conflict-of-interest gate before scoring and route conflicted assignments back to the review coordinator.
Separate author-facing feedback from confidential committee notes so each comment reaches the intended audience.
Adapt to your program
Tailor the evidence, scale, and recommendation choices to each track.
Score merit, then collect format recommendations and scheduling notes.
Evaluate session design, facilitator fit, audience participation, and practical outcomes as separate criteria.
Ask reviewers to confirm the submitted track or recommend a better route for committee discussion.
Add award eligibility, distinction criteria, or a shortlist question only when the submission qualifies.
Review workflow
Turn conference criteria into a form and test it before sending assignments.
Name the tracks, formats, criteria, reviewer roles, and recommendation choices.
Define every score point, mark rationale fields required, and add examples of constructive feedback for reviewers.
End conflicted reviews early, show format-specific questions when needed, and reveal revision notes after a revise decision.
Test a calibration abstract, fix ambiguity, then send links and export responses.
Choose a review method
Give the committee consistent evidence for selection, revision, and scheduling.
Field guide
Six sections cover identity, fairness checks, rubric scores, written feedback, and the final recommendation without making review unnecessarily long.
Assignment
Use stable abstract and reviewer IDs. Include the track and round so exports connect to submission records without exposing author details.
Conflict and expertise
Ask about conflicts before the rubric. Capture expertise because a low-confidence review may need another specialist.
Scoring rubric
Use separate scales for independent criteria. Anchor values with descriptions so scores mean roughly the same thing across reviewers.
Written assessment
Separate strengths and concerns. Focused prompts explain scores and distinguish fixable clarity problems from fundamental issues.
Comment audience
Label each comment's audience. Keep submitter feedback apart from confidential scheduling or selection discussion.
Recommendation
Match choices to the decision workflow. Pair recommendations with rationale and relevant format or track suggestions.
Related tools
Connect submission, review, speaker intake, registration, and evaluation forms.
Collect titles, authors, tracks, keywords, and abstract text before review begins.
Open toolCreate a broader peer-review rubric for papers, projects, or academic work.
Open toolCompare proposals with structured criteria, notes, and recommendations.
Open toolCollect session ideas, speaker biographies, formats, and audience takeaways.
Open toolRegister accepted speakers, reviewers, attendees, or program guests.
Open toolAdapt an evaluation structure for post-session or educational-event feedback.
Open toolFAQ
Practical answers for program chairs, review coordinators, and committee members.
It is a structured scorecard for conference reviewers. It identifies the assignment, checks conflicts and expertise, applies shared criteria, collects feedback, and records a committee recommendation.
Common criteria include originality, relevance, significance, methods, clarity, and audience value. Choose criteria that affect the decision, define scale anchors, and explain any weighting.
Describe every score point, provide a calibration abstract, and require rationale. Review calibration results before live assignments to find ambiguous criteria.
Yes. Use abstract and reviewer IDs and omit author names and affiliations. Also check whether the abstract text reveals identity.
Put a conflict question at the start and use conditional logic to stop scoring when a reviewer declares one. Collect a brief reason for the coordinator, mark the assignment for reassignment, and avoid asking the conflicted reviewer for an informal score.
Yes. Label submitter feedback and confidential committee notes separately so each comment reaches its intended audience.
Yes. Makeform provides unlimited free forms and responses, so you can generate, edit, publish, and collect reviews without a response cap. A paid tier is available only to remove the Makeform badge.
Keep abstract IDs, criteria, scales, and recommendation choices consistent, then send responses to a shared table such as Google Sheets. Compare criterion-level scores alongside written rationale, reviewer expertise, and conflicts instead of treating the overall average as the whole decision.
Give every abstract the same clear review process.
