Archway
Academic peer review depends on trust. Authors trust that their work will be evaluated fairly. Reviewers trust that they will only be asked to evaluate work they are qualified to judge. Chairs trust that the entire process will finish on time. Before Archway, maintaining that trust meant hours of manual coordination. Who has reviewed what? Which reviewer has a conflict with this author? Has the notification gone out? These questions were being answered through email threads and spreadsheets, one at a time, across a program committee that could span dozens of people.
Archway replaced that coordination overhead with a system where every role has exactly what it needs. Chairs see the full picture. Reviewers see their assignments and deadlines. Authors see their paper status and receive structured feedback when decisions are made. Nothing falls through the cracks because nothing is tracked in an inbox.
What We Built
Roles and Permissions
Conference chairs, program committee members, authors, and reviewers each log in to a different view of the same system. Roles are assigned by the chair and control exactly what each person can see and do.
Paper Submissions
Authors submit their research through a structured form that captures the title, abstract, research area, author details, and the paper file. Submissions are tracked from the moment they are uploaded.
Review Preferences
Before assignments are made, reviewers browse the list of submitted papers and indicate which ones they are best qualified to evaluate. Chairs use those preferences to make more accurate assignments.
Conflict Checker
The system checks for conflicts based on shared institutions and explicit declarations made by reviewers. Papers are never assigned to a reviewer with a known or declared conflict.
Review Forms
Reviewers evaluate papers through structured forms that separate written feedback from numerical scores. Each review captures technical quality, novelty, and clarity in a format consistent across the entire program committee.
Review Assignments
Chairs assign papers to reviewers manually or distribute the workload automatically. The system tracks which reviews are complete, which are overdue, and how many remain for each paper.
Smart Notifications
Every person in the system receives the right message at the right time. Submission confirmations, review reminders, deadline alerts, and decision letters go out automatically based on role and paper status. Nothing is sent manually.
Paper Decisions
Chairs accept, reject, or request revisions through a single interface. Authors receive structured decision letters with complete reviewer feedback attached, without the chair preparing each one by hand.
Schedule Builder
Accepted papers are organized into sessions and time slots through a drag-and-drop scheduler. The program is published automatically and kept in sync as changes are made.
Venue Planner
Organizers map out rooms, halls, and session spaces in a visual editor. Each space is linked to the program so attendees always know where their session is taking place.
QR Check-In
Every registered attendee receives a unique QR code. Staff scan codes at session entry points to record attendance in real time, replacing printed lists and manual check-ins.
Digital Certificates
Certificates of participation and presentation are generated and delivered automatically once attendance is confirmed. Each certificate carries the attendee's name, session details, and conference branding without any manual preparation.
Our Approach
We mapped out the peer review process from the moment a call for papers goes out to the moment authors receive their decision letters. The most complicated part was not the technology but the roles. Different people in the same system need completely different views and different levels of access. We built Archway so that each role gets a focused experience rather than a general dashboard that tries to do everything for everyone.
Results
Ready to be next
Got a problem worth solving?
Tell us what you need to build. We will handle the rest.