For Reviewers · 10 min read

CFP review best practices for program committees

A great program committee is the difference between a conference that feels curated and one that feels random. These are the practices we recommend to every committee that runs on submitcfp.

1. Agree on the rubric before you read a single talk

Reviewers without a rubric score mood, not talks. Default to Relevance, Originality, Clarity and Speaker Quality (1 to 5 each), but feel free to customise — just do it before you start. On submitcfp, organizers set custom criteria per stage with explicit weights so everyone scores the same things.

2. Calibrate on three talks together

Before the main review round, have every reviewer independently score the same three sample talks, then debrief. Inter-rater variance drops dramatically after a one-hour calibration session. It is the single highest-leverage hour the committee will spend.

3. Blind review for the first round

Hide speaker name, company and socials in L1. This fights unconscious bias around recognisable names and affiliations. Reveal identities in later stages where lived experience, track record and community fit legitimately matter.

4. One reviewer per stage cannot see another's score

submitcfp hides same-stage reviewers' scores and comments from each other on purpose. Independent judgment is the point of having multiple reviewers. Only later stages see earlier stages.

5. Declare conflicts of interest

Reviewers should flag any talk where they worked with the speaker, funded them, mentored them, or have an ongoing personal relationship. submitcfp's COI detection surfaces probable conflicts automatically — but the judgment is yours.

6. Write feedback the speaker would thank you for

Borderline rejections deserve two sentences of honest, specific feedback. "Strong topic, weak arc — consider a clearer three-act structure" helps a speaker for years. "Not a fit" helps nobody. Write feedback for the human on the other side.

7. Score the talk, not the person

A proposal can be great from an unknown speaker and weak from a known one. Your job is to pick the best talk, not the best LinkedIn profile. If a speaker is borderline, the organizer can invite them to a speaker coaching call — but only if the talk itself is worth the slot.

8. Close the loop

After decisions go out, review the program committee's own data: which reviewers had consistently high or low scoring bias? Which tracks had the most disagreement? Use submitcfp's Reviewer Progress and analytics to make next year's committee better.