How to Read a Call for Abstracts Like a Reviewer and Not Like an Applicant

Most researchers read Calls for Abstracts quickly. They scan the theme, note the deadline, check eligibility, and move on. This is understandable, particularly in busy academic environments. Yet this approach often overlooks the fact that a Call for Abstracts is not written for applicants alone. It is written primarily for reviewers and organisers. Learning to read it from their perspective can quietly change the outcome of a submission.

A Call for Abstracts is best understood as a statement of intention. It reflects what the organisers believe is urgent, unresolved, or under examined at a particular moment. This intention may be shaped by recent developments in the field, funding priorities, institutional partnerships, or emerging policy debates. While these influences are not always explicit, they often surface in the language of the call.

The first task, therefore, is to slow down. The theme should be read carefully, but it should not be read in isolation. The accompanying scope is usually where the real guidance lies. Phrases such as seeks to explore, aims to interrogate, or invites contributions on signal what the conference wants to hear, not merely what it is willing to tolerate. These phrases are not neutral. They point toward preferred problems, approaches, and levels of analysis.

It is also worth paying attention to what the call does not emphasise. Silence can be as revealing as inclusion. If a call on environmental law devotes substantial space to governance and justice but says little about technical regulation, an abstract focused narrowly on compliance mechanics may struggle, even if technically sound. This is not a judgment on quality. It is a question of fit.

Once this mapping exercise is done, the next step is interpretive rather than mechanical. The question is not how to insert keywords into an existing abstract, but how to frame one’s research question so that it genuinely speaks to the concerns the call has identified. Most research topics can be approached from multiple angles. Choosing the angle that aligns with the conference theme is an exercise in scholarly judgment.

This is where restraint becomes important. Over alignment can be as damaging as under alignment. Abstracts that repeat the language of the call without offering a clear problem or contribution tend to appear derivative. Reviewers may sense that the paper is being bent to fit the theme rather than developed within it. A more persuasive approach shows engagement with the theme while retaining an independent analytical voice.

In practical terms, this often means reformulating the research problem. A paper on constitutional litigation, for example, may be framed as a doctrinal analysis in one context and as a governance or access to justice issue in another. Neither framing is inherently superior. The choice depends on the intellectual space the conference is trying to create. The abstract should make that choice visible.

Methodology should be handled in the same spirit. Where a call encourages comparative or interdisciplinary work, this can be foregrounded. Where it values grounded or context specific analysis, excessive abstraction may work against the submission. These preferences are not always rigid, and the authorities are not settled across conferences. Still, attentiveness to emphasis matters.

One practical test is to ask whether a reviewer could easily justify the abstract’s inclusion by pointing to the call itself. If the connection between the abstract and the theme requires explanation, that explanation is likely missing from the text. Reviewers tend to favour abstracts that do not require interpretive rescue.

Ultimately, reading a Call for Abstracts like a reviewer requires a shift in posture. It means moving away from the question of whether one’s work is good, toward the question of whether it belongs here, now, in this conversation. That distinction, while subtle, is often decisive.

For researchers seeking international invitations, this interpretive discipline is not optional. It is part of the craft of academic participation. The abstract is where that craft is most visible.

Adekunle Saheed Akinola is a researcher with expertise in international environmental law and policy, focusing on the right to development, the transition to a green economy, and the rights of indigenous communities. He also specializes in comparative international human rights, particularly women’s and minority rights, as well as international investment law. Adekunle provides mentorship to early researchers and students in research paper writing, drafting conference abstracts, and developing Master’s and PhD theses. He is committed to helping scholars communicate their ideas clearly, structure their work effectively, and navigate academic submissions with confidence.

Contact:
Email: choicelandsolicitors9@gmail.com
Mobile: +2348032493960
ORCID: https://orcid.org/0009-0007-5346-8773