Use reviews for selection
You want to assemble a suitable programme with your team. Reviews provide advice; they do not make decisions for you. Use scores alongside content, audience, available slots and the organisation’s judgement.
For: staff with selection-management permission for the edition. Review permission alone or responsibility for speakers does not authorise acceptance, rejection, reserve decisions or release.
Beforehand: set up reviews and have reviewers record their assessments. You do not wait for an automatic quorum: there is none. Agree as a team when you have enough advice for a sound decision.
1. Read scores in context
Open the Selection board for the correct edition. Proposals are grouped by review group and then session type. Within each comparison, the highest visible averages come first. This is not an overall ranking of every topic and session type together.
Where you may read scores, you see the number of counting scores and their average. A score excluded because of a declared conflict does not contribute to that average. The overview can identify excluded scores separately.
Hidden is not zero. Protected scores do not get a visible average; sorting must not reveal their value either. Check why information is missing before judging a proposal poorly.
Example: three reviews, two counting scores
Noor gives 4, Daan 2 and Mila 5. Mila then declares a conflict of interest.
- Counting advice: 2 scores.
- Average: (4 + 2) / 2 = 3.00.
- Excluded score: 1, Mila’s 5.
This is an explanatory example, not an actual submission in the screenshots. One high score offers different support from several similar scores. Where permitted, read comments too and decide which additional review you need.
2. Understand what you can and cannot track
A reviewer’s personal work list shows their own work to handle. A conflict can mark an item as handled without adding a valid score. The counting-score total on the selection board answers a different question: how many valid numbers contribute to this advice?
Availability: the reference version does not yet show full selection progress as “N of M eligible reviewers”, filters for incomplete review coverage or a per-reviewer workload overview. Do not turn the displayed score count into a completion percentage without knowing who can actually assess the submission. There is also no configurable minimum or automatic acceptance threshold.
Need more advice? Check group placement and ask an authorised reviewer to assess the proposal. Own or co-submitted proposals, declared conflicts and already decided submissions have restrictions that adding more group members does not automatically resolve.
3. Separate roles from access to reviews
If you also review this group, you need your own counting score before seeing other assessments. Selection management does not remove that boundary when you are a reviewer yourself. In groups where you have no reviewer seat, you may read advice for your selection task.
If you speak or co-speak in a submission, its reviews, summary and speaker history remain protected even with selection management. The content may still be available for selection. Ask a colleague to handle review follow-up; do not use a group change to work around protected information.
4. Make a deliberate internal decision
Agree which proposals to accept, reserve or reject. Scores can prompt discussion or extra review; they do not perform those actions. When selecting several submissions, check that you picked the correct proposals and speakers.
Save the intended internal decisions and read the outcome per submission. A bulk action can succeed partially. After an error or stale information, inspect the current state before trying again.
Effect on reviews: an internal decision removes a submission from review even before its outcome is sent to the speaker. Reviewers can no longer give a new score. Earlier assessments are retained. Do not use a decision as a reminder to a reviewer whose work is unfinished.
5. Check changed content
If the speaker edits submitted content after an internal decision, the team sees a changed-content marker. Read the changed content again. If the decision still fits, the team can acknowledge the change while keeping that decision. Another content change can bring the marker back.
Reopening and cancellations need deliberate follow-up. A reopened submission may retain classifications no longer offered; resolve those before accepting it again. If a session has already been handed to Programme, coordinate handling with the programme team rather than assuming it will be unlinked automatically.
6. Send the outcome separately
An internal decision does not inform the speaker or start a confirmation deadline. First check the counts, affected submissions and any content changes. Then follow releasing decisions and confirming participation.
The reference version blocks release while the call remains open. Check what your installed version allows before promising a send time. The review target date does not send an outcome. A later decision is not included automatically in an earlier release.
Review comments are internal information; rejection does not send them as substantive feedback to the speaker. Once an acceptance is released, the speaker must confirm. Next come the Programme handover check and separate programme publication.
Done when: the intended decisions have been checked and deliberately released, with someone responsible for outstanding confirmations. The speaker manager supports the next stages.