How to run a call for entries

Run a call for entries as a sequence of decisions with named owners. Someone maintains the public brief, someone checks eligibility, reviewers assess the work, and an authorized person releases the results. Decide those responsibilities before the first application arrives.

Start with the open-call writing guide. This guide covers what happens around that brief: the schedule, review, applicant communication and closeout.

This guide gives Artsume's practical recommendations. The examples explain a process; they do not report customer results. A funder's rules apply to that funder's programs. Check your own program's requirements before using them.

Plan backward from the final commitment

Begin with the date the artist needs a confirmed answer. Work backward through contracting, final approval, panel discussion and independent review. Leave time for clarification and access requests. A calendar that fits only the ideal case will fail when a reviewer withdraws.

Record the dates in one shared schedule. Include the program contact, review lead, decision authority and backup for each role. Keep a clear distinction between your internal shortlist and the result you have communicated to the artist.

This is a working responsibility model. Adjust the roles to your organization, rather than giving everyone access to every application.

Test the application before opening it

Preview the public listing on a phone and a computer. Check the deadline's time zone, all fee information, required materials and contact details. Follow each external link. Make sure a video or document does not require permission the reviewer will not have.

Use a designated test application to check the form. Confirm that the questions produce the evidence your rubric needs. Do not collect sensitive information merely because a form field exists.

Artsume's program builder separates program details, materials and review settings. Choose the review pipeline and blind-review setting before submissions arrive; those settings lock after the first application.

Keep eligibility separate from judgment

Check whether the application meets the rules you published. Record the specific reason when a required condition fails. A work you dislike is not an eligibility failure.

Decide how you handle incomplete material before review starts. You might allow a missing file to be corrected within a defined window. Apply the same rule to equivalent cases. Keep the correction request and response with the application.

An unknown answer is not evidence that the applicant fails a requirement. Resolve missing information when it matters. Artsume's applicant-fit tools support review, but people make the selection decisions.

Brief the reviewers with shared examples

Give reviewers the program purpose, criteria, scoring guidance, dates and confidentiality expectations. Explain whether they should assess only submitted material or also follow external links. That rule needs to be consistent across the panel.

Ask everyone to assess the same practice example before scoring the live pool. Compare their reasons. If two reviewers read a criterion differently, clarify the criterion before their scores affect applicants.

The NEA's public review description explains its use of conflict-free panels and separate final decision authority. Use your organization's own conflict policy and document recusals. A reviewer who recognizes an artist during blind review should disclose the conflict through that policy.

Choose the review method for the job

Recommendation-only review can suit a small program with straightforward criteria. A scored rubric can help a panel compare the evidence behind different judgments. A two-round process can reduce detailed review to a shortlist when the first-round rules are clear.

On Artsume, solo and panel review with recommendation scoring are available to every organization. Artsume Pro for organizations adds advanced review options. Check organization plans and the review instructions for current boundaries.

A shortlist is an internal working group. It does not itself mean an artist is accepted or waitlisted. Keep that distinction in staff conversations and applicant messages.

Resolve disagreement with evidence

Large score differences deserve discussion. Ask reviewers which submitted evidence supports their assessment. Do not average away a factual disagreement about eligibility, budget or required materials.

Use the tie rule you agreed before review. If you need an additional reviewer, document why and apply the same process to comparable cases. Do not quietly introduce a new criterion because the final group feels inconvenient.

Where the program considers curatorial balance or available resources, say so in the published process. Record how the final decision relates to the scores. A score is evidence for a decision, not a promise of a place.

Release decisions deliberately

Check the recipient, program, outcome and next steps before release. An acceptance should state what the artist must confirm and by when. A waitlist message should explain when that status ends. A decline should give a clear result without implying a later opportunity you cannot offer.

Artsume separates recording an outcome from releasing decision letters. Follow the decision-release steps with an authorized person. Review your templates before a batch release, and check delivery failures through the tools available to your team.

Do not publish unsuccessful applicants or private panel discussion as evidence of transparency. You can explain the process without exposing personal information.

Close the cycle with a useful record

Reconcile accepted places, withdrawals, fees and outstanding commitments. Save the final criteria, review configuration and public call text so you can explain the process later.

Use Reports for the recorded application activity. A rise in applications during promotion does not establish that promotion caused every application. Keep measured activity separate from your interpretation.

Write a short review for the next cycle: which question produced useful evidence, where applicants needed help, and where reviewers disagreed. Update the next program's brief from those findings.

A funder example: conflicts and decisions

The Canada Council's application assessment process requires assessors to disclose conflicts. An assessor with a conflict does not participate in discussion of that application. These are Canada Council rules.

For your process, publish a conflict rule and name the person who applies it. Prepare a replacement reviewer when recusal leaves too few assessments. This is Artsume's recommendation, not a claim that every funder uses the same process.

Set up your next program from the organization workspace instructions.