Running a Call for Papers That Gets Good Submissions

A call for papers has one failure mode that matters: plenty of submissions, none of them what you wanted. That is almost always a problem with the call, not with the field.

Say what you are looking for, specifically

"Submissions on any topic related to X" produces submissions on any topic related to X. Name three or four themes, give an example of the kind of talk you mean for each, and say what you are not looking for — product pitches, repeats of last year, or introductory material if your audience is senior. Specificity does not reduce the number of submissions; it improves them.

Ask for the minimum that lets you review

• Title and a 150–250 word abstract.
• Format and length — talk, workshop, panel, lightning.
• Level: introductory, intermediate, advanced.
• Two or three sentences on why this speaker.
• Whether it has been presented elsewhere, and where.

Full papers, slides and biographies can wait until acceptance. Every extra field at submission stage loses you a proposal you would have wanted — the same logic as registration forms.

Publish the review criteria with the call

Relevance, originality, the speaker's standing, and fit with the rest of the programme — whatever yours are, say so. Reviewers score against them consistently, and submitters write against them. Both halves get better. If you review anonymously, say that too; see blind review.

Timeline that works

• Open six to eight weeks. Longer does not produce more; it produces the same rush in the last 48 hours, later.
• Announce the deadline three times: at opening, at two weeks to go, and 48 hours out. The final reminder typically brings a third of all submissions.
• Extend once, if at all, and only by a week. Routine extensions teach people to ignore the first date.
• Decide within three weeks of closing, and send all decisions the same day.

Go and ask people

The best sessions at most conferences are invited, not submitted. Make a list of fifteen people you would like on stage and email them personally two weeks before you open the call. Half will not submit without the nudge, and the ones who do lift the average of everything else.

Reject well

A rejection with one sentence of reason — "strong proposal, but we had three on this theme" — keeps the person willing to submit next year. A form rejection does not. Given that your future programme depends on this pool, it is the highest-return ten minutes in the process.

Then build the programme

Acceptances are not a schedule. Turning them into one — themes, levels, clashes, room sizes — is its own job: see building a conference agenda without clashes.

Gathervo runs the call for papers, the review (blind or assigned) and the resulting agenda in one place, so an accepted submission becomes a session without being retyped. Try it free.