Template
Write a conference abstract that gets accepted into the program
A call for papers closes soon and you need to describe work that may not be finished, in a form a review panel will score against a rubric.
- Typical length
- Commonly 250–500 words, and some calls ask for as few as 150 or as many as 1,000 for an extended abstract. The submission form enforces the limit.
- Usual tense
- Past tense for completed work, present tense for what the paper argues, and future tense for what will be finished before the conference.
- First person
- Normal and often preferred — a conference abstract is a pitch for a talk you will give in person.
- Citations
- Usually omitted, though some calls in the humanities allow a few. Where permitted, keep to two or three and use the conference’s stated style.
- Review process
- Often blind and scored against published criteria such as originality, rigor, and fit. Read the criteria before writing — they are effectively the marking scheme.
- Check the call for papers
- The word limit, anonymization requirements, track definitions, deadline time zone, and whether accepted abstracts are published in proceedings.
THE SKELETON
Section by section
Each block gives you the heading, what it has to accomplish, and the questions that fill it.
1
Title and Author Line
A title that reads well in a program booklet and tells a browsing delegate whether to attend. Author line follows the conference’s anonymization rules.
- Would someone scanning 200 session titles stop at yours?
- Is the review process blind, and if so have you removed identifying details?
- Does the title fit the character limit in the submission form?
2 · about 20% of the abstract
Context and Motivation
Two or three sentences on why the topic matters to this audience. A conference abstract can afford a slightly warmer opening than a journal abstract.
- What problem will the audience recognize from their own work?
- What has changed recently that makes this worth a session?
- Are you assuming knowledge that only your subfield has?
3 · about 10% of the abstract
Aim or Research Question
The single sentence stating what the paper does. Reviewers scoring against a rubric look for this line first.
- Can you state the aim in one sentence with an active verb?
- Does the aim match the track or theme you are submitting to?
- Is the scope realistic for a twenty-minute talk?
4 · about 20% of the abstract
Approach
How you went about it — data, method, corpus, or argument. Brief, but concrete enough that reviewers can tell the work is real.
- What kind of evidence or material does the paper rest on?
- How much of the work is already done?
- Which detail would most reassure a skeptical reviewer?
5 · about 30% of the abstract
Findings or Expected Findings
What you found, or what you expect to find and by when. Where work is in progress, say so plainly rather than writing around it.
- What is the most interesting thing you can already say?
- If the analysis is unfinished, what will be complete by the conference date?
- Have you written “results will be presented” in place of a result?
6
Significance and Fit With the Call
Connect the work to the conference theme or track, and say what the audience takes away from the session.
- Which words from the call for papers describe this work?
- What will a delegate be able to do or think differently afterward?
- Which track is the best home for it, and why?
7
Keywords and Submission Details
Keywords, preferred presentation format, equipment needs, and anything else the form asks for. Small, and easy to get wrong at the deadline.
- Which presentation format are you requesting — paper, poster, panel, workshop?
- Does the form require a short biography or a separate lay summary?
- Would you accept a poster if the paper slot is declined?
SENTENCE STARTERS
Phrasing you can adapt
Lift these and change the specifics. Academic phrasing is a shared convention, not something each writer has to reinvent.
Practitioners in … increasingly report that …
The rapid adoption of … has outpaced our understanding of …
This paper takes up a question raised repeatedly at recent meetings: …
Two literatures speak to this problem, and they rarely speak to each other.
Data collection is complete; analysis will be finalized by …
This paper reports preliminary findings from an ongoing study of …
We present interim results from the first of three waves.
By the time of the conference, we expect to report …
The paper speaks directly to the conference theme of …
Attendees will leave with a framework for …
The session is aimed at colleagues working on … in … settings.
We hope the paper will open a discussion about …
Questions about the conference abstract
Can I submit an abstract for work that is not finished?
At most conferences, yes — that is much of the point of presenting. Be explicit about what stage the work is at and what will be complete by the meeting, since panels forgive incompleteness but not vagueness.
How does a conference abstract differ from a journal abstract?
A journal abstract summarizes a finished paper for readers; a conference abstract proposes a session to a review panel. It can be more forward-looking, should address the conference theme directly, and is judged on what an audience will get from twenty minutes.
Is it acceptable to present the same work at two conferences?
Practices differ by field. Many conferences allow it if the audiences differ and you disclose it; others treat prior presentation as disqualifying. The call for papers usually says, and if it does not, ask the organizers.
What gets an abstract rejected?
Most often poor fit with the track, an aim that is never stated, or an abstract with no findings at all. Panels rank against a rubric, so an abstract that leaves a criterion unaddressed loses points automatically.
An outline is a start
Plan mode is the rest
Copyeditor’s Plan mode turns a structure like this into sections you produce one at a time, with citations landing in the bibliography as you go.
