Conference Paper Submission & Blind Peer-Review Platform
Employer
Yaroslav
Project parameters
Type of cooperationOne-time project
SectionWeb development
Prepaymentwithout prepayment
Payment methodsCash, Bank transfer
Acceptance of requestsfrom yesterday, 15:46 until Sep 18, 2026
Project description
We run an annual academic conference and currently manage the entire call for papers by email, which no longer scales. Authors send abstracts and full papers as attachments, we forward them to reviewers by hand, and we track scores and decisions in spreadsheets that quickly fall out of sync. We need a single web platform that opens a call for papers with configurable tracks and deadlines, lets authors register, submit abstracts and camera-ready files, edit them until the cutoff, and receive automatic confirmations at every step.
The core of the system is double-blind peer review. The program chair must be able to assign each submission to two or three reviewers, respecting declared conflicts of interest and matching reviewers to topics by keywords. Reviewers log in to a personal queue, read anonymized papers, fill in a structured scoring form (originality, relevance, clarity, a numeric recommendation) and leave separate comments for authors and for the committee. The platform should aggregate scores, flag disagreements, and support a discussion thread and an optional rebuttal round before decisions are made.
After reviews close we need decision tools that mark papers as accepted, rejected, or accepted with revisions, send personalized notification letters, and then build the conference program from the accepted set. We want to arrange sessions, assign rooms and time slots, avoid clashes, and export the schedule and the book of abstracts. Please describe your relevant experience and a realistic timeline.
— Call for papers: tracks, deadlines, author accounts, abstract and full-paper upload
— Reviewer assignment with conflict-of-interest and topic matching
— Blind scoring forms, aggregation, discussion and rebuttal
— Decisions, notification letters, program and schedule builder
The core of the system is double-blind peer review. The program chair must be able to assign each submission to two or three reviewers, respecting declared conflicts of interest and matching reviewers to topics by keywords. Reviewers log in to a personal queue, read anonymized papers, fill in a structured scoring form (originality, relevance, clarity, a numeric recommendation) and leave separate comments for authors and for the committee. The platform should aggregate scores, flag disagreements, and support a discussion thread and an optional rebuttal round before decisions are made.
After reviews close we need decision tools that mark papers as accepted, rejected, or accepted with revisions, send personalized notification letters, and then build the conference program from the accepted set. We want to arrange sessions, assign rooms and time slots, avoid clashes, and export the schedule and the book of abstracts. Please describe your relevant experience and a realistic timeline.
— Call for papers: tracks, deadlines, author accounts, abstract and full-paper upload
— Reviewer assignment with conflict-of-interest and topic matching
— Blind scoring forms, aggregation, discussion and rebuttal
— Decisions, notification letters, program and schedule builder
