Microsoft CMT

Microsoft CMT is a web-based system for managing academic and scientific conference submissions and peer review. It suits conference teams that need configurable review workflows without a software fee. Its broad submission and reviewer tools are a strong fit for scholarly events, provided organizers can accept conference data being removed after the event.

Overview

CMT is purpose-built for academic and scientific peer review, not general event management. Conference teams can configure tracks and forms, manage a submission from abstract through presentation, and coordinate reviewers and authors in one system. Hosting runs on Microsoft Azure with data geo-replicated across data centers, while conference data is removed after the event ends; organizers should plan exports and records accordingly.

The workflow accommodates blind review, mixed submission types, custom review stages, and schedule building. That range makes CMT suitable for conferences with multiple tracks or several review milestones, but its academic focus makes it a poor match for events seeking a broader registration or attendee-management system.

Key features

Configurable submissions and review

Each conference can have any number of independently configured tracks, with customizable forms and question visibility. The lifecycle can include abstracts, full papers, supplementary files, revisions, camera-ready versions, and presentations. Unlimited file uploads are supported, with a 100 MB maximum per file and formats including PDF, DOCX, audio, and video. The per-file cap is worth checking for media-heavy submissions.

Reviewer coordination

Roles span chairs, senior meta-reviewers, meta-reviewers, reviewers, authors, and proceedings editors. Teams can assign reviewers manually or automatically, use the Toronto Paper Matching System, and support review through paper bidding, reviewer suggestions, threaded discussion, virtual program committee meetings, and author rebuttals. This is a substantial toolkit for committees coordinating decisions across tracks; teams that need only a basic abstract intake may find its workflow broader than necessary.

Administration and records

CMT streamlines IEEE eCopyright submission and exports conference data to Excel, XML, or CSV. It logs submission activity and file uploads and downloads. Conferences are removed after they end, and their data is then no longer available, so organizers who need a lasting archive should export what they need before closure.

Pricing

CMT is free. The Free plan costs nothing and covers managing academic conferences; no paid CMT tier is described. That removes a software charge for scholarly organizers, though it does not change the practical need to plan for data retention and the site-request requirements.

To request a conference site, at least one chair must have a current, valid university email address that is neither a student nor alumni address. Site creation can take up to 72 hours, so teams should request access ahead of their submission schedule.

Platforms

CMT is available on the web. No other platform is identified, so teams should expect to use it through a browser.

Who it's for

CMT is best for academic and scientific conference chairs and committees that need structured peer review, configurable tracks, multiple submission stages, and reviewer collaboration without paying for the system. It is less suitable for non-academic events, organizers who require conference data to remain available after an event ends, or teams without an eligible chair email for requesting a site.

Pros and cons

Pros

• No software fee: The Free plan costs nothing, making CMT a clear option for academic conferences that need a dedicated review workflow.
• Broad scholarly workflow: Multiple submission stages, configurable tracks, rebuttals, and reviewer assignment tools support committees managing complex peer review.
• Flexible file handling: Unlimited uploads and support for varied file types accommodate more than standard paper PDFs, subject to the 100 MB per-file limit.
• Useful export formats: Excel, XML, and CSV exports give organizers options for retaining or working with conference data.

Cons

• Post-event data is removed: Conference data is no longer available after removal, so organizers must export records they want to keep.
• Site requests have eligibility and lead-time constraints: A qualifying chair email is required, and creation can take up to 72 hours.
• Academic focus limits its fit: CMT is designed for academic and scientific peer review, not general-purpose event management.
• Large files need planning: The maximum file size is 100 MB, even though the number of uploads is unlimited.

Alternatives

For a broader set of options, see Call for Papers Software and Event Abstract Management Software.

• Airballoon is an option for organizers considering a freemium platform with a free companion event and networking app.
• EasyChair may suit smaller submission volumes: its free plan allows up to 20 submissions, while its Professional plan costs $3.90, paid once and allows up to 60 submissions.
• SimplyConf is worth considering if self-hosting matters; its free Core plan includes unlimited events, submissions, and users.
• MeetingHand Abstract Management offers a free plan for up to 25 registrations or abstracts, a better fit for organizers working within that cap.
• HotCRP may be preferable for teams seeking self-hosted or Linux options; its free plans include ACM-sponsored and USENIX-sponsored events.
• ConfTool may fit a smaller non-commercial event that can use a local installation: its free Standard license is on request, capped at 150 participants, and includes no support.
• Oxford Abstracts is an alternative for organizers who want a free plan with unlimited submissions, review and decision workflows, event ticketing, and customizable forms and emails.
• Fireside is a free, open-source alternative under the Apache-2.0 license.

Verdict

Academic conference teams that need a no-cost, full-cycle peer-review system should put CMT on their shortlist: its configurable tracks, reviewer coordination, and submission stages address the core work of scholarly review. Look elsewhere if event data must remain in the system after the conference, if a chair cannot meet the email requirement, or if the event is not academic and scientific in focus.