EasyChair vs OpenReview vs CMT: Submission Systems Compared

Picking the wrong conference submission system can cost weeks of setup time and leave authors doubting your event before anyone reads a paper. If you are choosing between EasyChair, OpenReview and CMT (the Conference Management Toolkit from Microsoft), the three platforms look alike until you are deep in configuration and find that one of them does not fit your workflow. Authors and reviewers meet the same systems from the other side, so this guide also helps researchers who want to know what to expect when a call for papers names one of them. Authors who want the submission steps themselves can follow how to submit a paper on OpenReview and how to submit a paper on Microsoft CMT.

Quick answer: EasyChair, OpenReview and CMT can all run double-blind conference review, so the choice depends on size, openness and cost. EasyChair suits small events: its free license stops at 20 submissions. OpenReview is a nonprofit project built for open peer review. CMT is a free Microsoft Research service that handles large multi-track conferences. None of them assigns DOIs or decides indexing.

Last verified against official sources: October 2026.

EasyChair vs OpenReview vs CMT at a Glance

All three are web-based submission and review systems, and the table shows where they differ. EasyChair is the familiar default, OpenReview is the open-review specialist, and CMT is the free heavyweight for large events.

One thing no table captures is culture fit. Your reviewers already have accounts somewhere, and your program committee chairs have habits. The best system is often the one your community will use without complaining for three weeks. If the senior chairs have run five conferences on EasyChair, switching to CMT mid-cycle for marginal gains is rarely worth the cost.

EasyChair: Overview, Smart CFP and Pricing

EasyChair is the platform most researchers meet first. It is the one your supervisor probably used and the one named in many calls for papers. Familiarity is not the same as fit, so here is what it actually offers.

History of EasyChair and Its User Base

EasyChair was built by Andrei Voronkov, a computer science professor at the University of Manchester, and has been in use since around 2002. It began as a tool for computer science conferences and is now a commercial service used across engineering, linguistics, philosophy and medical research too. The exact user and conference counts change every year, so check EasyChair’s own statistics page rather than trusting a figure in an article.
That reach is why other submission systems are usually measured against EasyChair. The core workflow is well known: the author submits, the program committee reviews, the chairs decide. It supports double-blind review, paper bidding, automatic and manual assignment, discussion between reviewers and, on higher licenses, multi-track events.

What Is EasyChair’s Smart CFP?

Smart CFP is the part of EasyChair where organizers publish a call for papers and authors search for one. It is a searchable list that shows each event’s acronym, location, deadline and topics, and organizers can create a CFP page from templates. It works as a discovery tool: a structured, searchable CFP is easier to find than one buried in a mailing list archive.
It does not push your call to Scopus, DBLP or any external database, and it is not an AI feature. It is separate from the submission and review workflow, so you can use it or ignore it. Check EasyChair’s current pages for any cost, because the Smart CFP page does not state one.

Is EasyChair Scopus Indexed?

No. EasyChair’s review system is submission management software, and Scopus indexes publications such as journals and proceedings, not the tools used to review papers. What happens to an accepted paper afterwards depends on the organizers and their publisher.
EasyChair also runs a separate proceedings publishing service, the EPiC Series. Its publications page says one series, EPiC Series in Computing, received confirmation from the Scopus Content Selection and Advisory Board, in future tense and without a date. That concerns a publication series, not the review software, so confirm any series in Scopus’s own source list.
The confusion usually comes from two places. Many Scopus-indexed conferences use EasyChair, so researchers see “submit via EasyChair” and assume a link. And some low-quality conferences imply a connection that does not exist. To check indexing, look at the proceedings publisher (IEEE, Springer, ACM, Elsevier and others) and search Scopus’s own source list. Papers submitted through EasyChair also get no DOI automatically; that happens at publication.

EasyChair Pricing: Free Tier and Paid Licenses

EasyChair has a free tier and paid licenses. Its license page lists a Free license capped at 20 submissions, a Professional license at a pay-as-you-go price per submission (up to 60 submissions, credit card only), and Executive and VIP licenses for unlimited submissions with more support. The free license includes no technical support and no advanced features. Prices are shown in 15 currencies and change, so read the current license page before you plan a budget.

Volume discounts start at 200 submissions and reach up to 40% at 1,000 or more. A single-track workshop under the free cap is fine on EasyChair. A mid-size event with several tracks needs at least the Professional license, and an event with hundreds of submissions should budget for Executive.

OpenReview: Overview, Transparency and Review Models

OpenReview is a different kind of platform. It was created in Andrew McCallum’s lab at UMass Amherst as a project about improving peer review, and it describes itself as a long-term project with legal nonprofit status. Transparency is its founding principle rather than a bolt-on feature.

It is hosted at openreview.net and relies on sponsors and donations. The web interface is free software under the GNU Affero General Public License v3, so technically skilled organizers can inspect the code, which matters if you want to understand how data is handled.

Open Access and Transparency Policy

OpenReview is built so that a venue can make submissions, reviews and author responses publicly visible. Anyone with internet access can then read the paper, the reviewer comments and the authors’ replies, sometimes before a decision is made. Most other systems treat review as a private exchange between authors and reviewers, and OpenReview treats it as a public record.
In practice this has consequences. Researchers can cite early versions, outsiders can comment during the review period, and rejected papers can stay visible with their reviews. Some authors find that uncomfortable, while others see strong reviews on a rejected paper as a sign of quality. The venue chair decides how open to be: submission visibility is set on the venue request form and can be changed later through the post-submission or post-decision stages, so you can keep reviews private until decisions, open the forum later, or switch off public commenting entirely.
A paper on OpenReview gets a persistent page URL, which is handy for sharing, but a URL is not a DOI. Where a venue issues DOIs, it does so through its proceedings publisher, and OpenReview handles the discussion layer.

Why NeurIPS, ICML and ICLR Use OpenReview

The machine learning community has been vocal about peer review reform, and OpenReview’s model matches that culture. ICLR was an early adopter and used public review as a deliberate experiment. NeurIPS announced in 2021 that it was shifting its entire reviewing workflow to OpenReview, and ICML took its 2023 submissions through OpenReview. Both handle thousands of submissions, so scale has not been a problem for the infrastructure.
If you work in machine learning you almost certainly have an account already, and that familiarity has real value. Outside machine learning the endorsement carries weight but does not translate automatically. OpenReview suits large reviewer pools and a culture of open discussion, and it asks more of organizers than EasyChair does for a small 100-paper event that needs basic submission management.

Blind and Double-Blind Review on OpenReview

OpenReview supports blind and double-blind review as well as open review, and the venue organizer chooses the anonymity setting in the venue request form. In blind review, reviewers do not see author identities. In double-blind review, authors do not know who reviewed them either, and reviewer assignments stay confidential until the venue decides otherwise. NeurIPS 2021’s OpenReview summary report describes its process as double-blind and closed. No platform can stop an author from posting a preprint and de-anonymizing themselves, so enforcement still depends on the rules your venue sets.
During a live review period reviewers usually appear under anonymous labels, and authors can reply to them in the forum thread. After the review closes, some venues reveal names and others keep reviewers anonymous for good. Public comments from outside researchers are a real difference from EasyChair and CMT. That can work well for a large machine learning venue and become noise at a small niche conference.

CMT (Conference Management Toolkit): Overview and Strengths

CMT is a free web service for managing academic conferences, sponsored by Microsoft Research and hosted on Microsoft Azure with data geo-replicated across data centers. It is popular for large events, where a paid system would get expensive. NeurIPS used it for years before moving to OpenReview, so it has been tested at a scale most systems never see.

Microsoft Backing: Infrastructure and Scalability

CMT’s own features page lists unlimited submissions, customizable submission and review forms, and auto-saved review drafts. It supports revision uploads, camera-ready collection and IEEE eCopyright forms, and the About page sets a maximum file size of 100 MB.
Two limits matter when you plan. CMT describes itself as a peer review service and its pages do not cover registration or payments, so plan another tool for those. And support is by help-center ticket, while authors are told to contact the chairs for anything about their own conference.

Why CMT Leads in Multi-Track Management

Multi-track events mean separate submission pools, different program committees, independent review assignments and often different deadlines. CMT’s About page says there is no limit on the number of tracks and that each track is configured independently.
Review assignment is a strength: conflict management (conflict domains, author-marked conflicts and conflict disputes), bidding for reviewers and meta-reviewers, and both automatic and manual assignment. Automatic assignment weighs scores, subject relevance, bids and meta-reviewer suggestions. CMT supports single-blind and double-blind reviewing, review discussions and author rebuttals uploaded as files. Open peer review is not among its listed features, which fits the traditional conference model most of its users follow.
For a small single-track workshop, or an event that wants open publishing built into the workflow, CMT is not the obvious first choice. For a large multi-track conference, especially in computing, it is hard to argue against.

How Organizers Get Started on Each Platform

Before you compare features, compare what each platform asks of you, because approval steps and lead times differ.

Data Privacy, Security and External Tool Integration

Privacy matters more than most researchers expect until something goes wrong, and integration is where many organizers hit surprises. This section covers both, and does not rank the platforms, because published audit details are not easy to compare.

Data Privacy and Security

All three keep submissions on their own or a cloud provider’s servers, so none of them is a neutral party. Where your data lives and who can see it is the real question.

• EasyChair is a commercial service that stores submissions, reviewer identities and paper content on its servers, with backup and replication on every license. For sensitive research such as defense or medical work, ask what data export and deletion options exist before you commit.
• OpenReview is a nonprofit project. Papers, reviews and discussions become visible according to the venue’s settings, so a venue that wants confidentiality must configure it carefully. Because the web interface is open source, technically skilled organizers can see how the data is handled.
• CMT keeps data inside Microsoft’s Azure infrastructure. For institutions with Microsoft agreements that may be an advantage, while others will want to review how the data is used downstream.

If your conference falls under GDPR, for example because you are based in Europe or accept EU-based authors, read each platform’s current privacy and data processing terms and talk to your institution’s data governance or legal team before you decide. Do not assume it is fine.

Integration with Scopus, DOI and Other Tools

None of the three assigns DOIs or handles Scopus indexing for you. That sits with your proceedings publisher, and Scopus runs its own editorial evaluation of a source. What the platform gives you is the paper collection and review side, and you need a separate workflow for indexing and DOIs whichever one you choose.

In short, EasyChair’s publisher integrations sit on its higher licenses, OpenReview gives the most flexibility if you have developer time, and CMT covers copyright forms and camera-ready collection for free.

AI Features and Smart Tools in Submission Systems

AI features are not a reason to choose any of these three right now. Reviewer assignment is still a chair’s job, and the tools only assist.

• OpenReview describes reviewer-paper matching for conferences with thousands of submissions, combining expertise, bidding, constraints and reviewer balancing. Its paper matching uses affinity scores, bids and conflicts, and chairs set limits such as papers per reviewer.
• EasyChair offers paper bidding plus automatic and manual assignment on every license. Its Smart CFP is a call-for-papers listing service, not an AI feature.
• CMT offers TPMS-based and automatic assignment that weighs scores, subject relevance and bids. Its pages do not describe AI features that set it apart.

For a conference with 200 to 500 submissions across four or five tracks, none of this will be the deciding factor. Privacy rules such as GDPR also affect which automated features a platform can offer to European authors, so check the current terms before assuming a feature is available.

Mobile Friendliness and Accessibility

All three are web applications used in a browser, and none of them needs an app install. They are designed mainly around desktop use, so test your own workflow on the devices your committee will use.

• Before the deadline: open a submission form, upload a PDF and read a review form on the phone or tablet your reviewers are likely to use.
• If a login fails: CMT’s help pages say most login problems come from a browser that is not current, and suggest trying Incognito or Private mode first.
• For configuration and assignment: plan to do it on a desktop, because those screens carry the most fields and tables.

If your institution needs tools that meet a specific accessibility standard such as WCAG 2.1 or 2.2, ask each provider for its current accessibility documentation and test the platform with your own committee. Build the question into your evaluation early.

Which Platform Is Best for Which Conference?

No single platform wins everywhere. Each has a natural home, and the table below gives the short version.

Small and Mid-Size Events

For a workshop, regional symposium or single-track event, EasyChair is usually the path of least resistance. The free license covers submission, double-blind review, bidding and assignment for up to 20 submissions, though it has no technical support. A small event with several tracks needs the Professional license, which covers up to 60 submissions. CMT is also free and a reasonable choice for a small event.

Large Multi-Track Conferences

CMT earns its reputation here. It was designed for events with many submissions across multiple tracks, parallel reviewing pools and bid-and-assign workflows, and it places no limit on tracks. EasyChair runs multi-track events from the Professional license and handles unlimited submissions on Executive. OpenReview offers limited track functionality, which makes it the weakest fit of the three for many parallel tracks.

Open Peer Review and Machine Learning Venues

OpenReview is the obvious pick when the review process itself should be visible. If your community cares about open-access norms or public discussion of submitted work, it is the only one of the three that supports this by design. In machine learning and AI it has become the usual platform, and authors submitting to ICLR or NeurIPS-related events know what to expect.

Double-Blind Review and Indexing Needs

Double-blind review is no longer a differentiator, because all three anonymize author information during review. For Scopus or DOI needs, the platform makes no difference, since that is handled downstream by your publisher.

Publicizing Your Call for Papers

How you advertise your call affects submission numbers. A clean, stable submission URL that works for first-time visitors helps. Smart CFP can list your call regardless of which platform you use for review.

If You Are Still Unsure

Start with EasyChair if you need something running fast and your team has no experience with the others. Move to CMT if volume and workflow complexity are your main problems. Choose OpenReview if openness or alignment with machine learning norms is non-negotiable.
From our experience at MS International: authors submit their paper or abstract through the conference page and follow the formatting template provided. Review is double-blind, and most review decisions are returned within about 10 working days, although complex papers or revision rounds can take longer. Accepted papers may be considered for conference proceedings where applicable.

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)

Organizers picking a submission platform usually compare price, double-blind review, handling several tracks, DOI support and how quickly a first-time chair can get the site running.

Is EasyChair free to use?

Yes, up to 20 submissions. EasyChair’s free license suits small workshops but includes no technical support and no advanced features such as multi-track support. Larger conferences need a paid license, priced per submission by tier. Check the current license page, because prices and limits change.

Does OpenReview support double-blind review?

Yes. The venue organizer chooses the anonymity setting and who can read submissions in the venue request form. NeurIPS 2021 ran double-blind, closed reviewing on OpenReview, and other venues choose fully public review instead.

Who owns CMT?

Microsoft Research sponsors CMT, the Conference Management Toolkit, and hosts it on Azure. It is free for organizers, which is partly why it is popular for large conferences. You are still trusting a corporate platform with your data, so check institutional privacy requirements first.

Can I get a DOI through these platforms?

No. EasyChair, OpenReview and CMT do not assign DOIs. DOIs come from the publisher or a registration agency such as Crossref, so arrange them through your proceedings publisher after acceptance.

Is EasyChair Scopus indexed?

No. EasyChair’s review system is submission software, not a publication, so it is not indexed. EasyChair separately publishes the EPiC Series, and its page says one series received Scopus confirmation. Whether any proceedings are in Scopus depends on the publisher, which you can check in Scopus’s source list.

Which platform handles multi-track conferences best?

CMT, for large events: it sets no limit on tracks and configures each independently. EasyChair offers multi-track support from its Professional license. OpenReview has limited track functionality, and separate deadlines or review forms per track mean a separate venue request for each.

Is OpenReview only for machine learning conferences?

No. ICLR, NeurIPS and ICML made it famous, but any venue that applies through its request form can use it. Its culture and tooling still reflect machine learning roots, so check that the workflow fits your field first.

Are these platforms mobile-friendly?

All three are web applications that run in a browser, with no app to install, but they are designed mainly for desktop. Test the submission and review forms on your reviewers’ devices before the deadline, and do configuration and assignment on a computer.

What happens to submitted paper data, and is it secure?

Each platform handles it differently. EasyChair keeps data on its own servers with backup and replication, OpenReview makes content public according to venue settings, and CMT hosts data on Microsoft Azure. If your institution has strict privacy rules, read each platform’s data terms before committing.

Which system is easiest to set up for a first-time organizer?

It depends on the route. EasyChair lets you create the conference and try a demo version. OpenReview needs a venue request that its team reviews and deploys. CMT needs a chair with a current university email and an approved site request.

Conclusion: Choose by Size, Openness and Budget

There is no single winner. All three solve the same problem, which is managing conference submissions, and they differ in scale, openness and cost. Choose EasyChair for a small or mid-size event that needs to start quickly, OpenReview when public, transparent review is the point, and CMT when you run a large multi-track event with no budget for software.
Before you commit, ask three practical questions. Do your reviewers already know the system? Does your institution have data rules that affect where submissions can be stored? And who will handle DOIs and indexing with the publisher? Pick based on your real constraints, not on which name sounds most credible in a committee meeting.