Proposal Review Process

In PyCon TW 2025, our proposal review process is based on Two Round review.

Please login to PyCon TW reviewing system to review, and we WILL NOT reveal your identity in the whole review process.

First Round

  • Review proposals, give votes & comments.
  • Other reviewer's comments, speaker's (the author) name, and speaker's experience are masked. In other words, give votes based only on content
  • After first round, we will accept some proposals.

Modification Stage

  • Author can view the comments that reviewers anonymously left during first round.
  • Authors can modify their proposals in this stage
  • There will be no review activities during this stage.

Second Round

  • Proposals those were not directly accepted from the first round will go into second round.
  • Please recheck the proposals that you've reviewed in first stage, and review the proposal again based on the modified version.
  • If you didn't update your vote and comment, or at least entering the same vote and comment, your vote given in first round will not be taken into consideration. (Except ones didn't change in the modification stage)
  • Now you can view the information of the author, and other reviewers' votes and comments (anonymous)
  • After the end of this round, acceptance of proposals will be determined. If the number of accepted proposals is insufficient or exceeding, Program Committee has the right to decide.

Review Announcement

After review, we will email the second round votes and comments to authors. If you don't want to disclose your votes & comments, please change the "Disclose comment to proposal submitter" field to "No".

Notice

  • Giving constructive comments is helpful for the review process, and helps author in the modification stage.
  • When rating, please put yourself into author's shoes, refer to 《How to Propose a Talk》 about good ideas and bad ideas as judging criteria. We also welcome reviewers to give us more advice on how to distinguish good and bad ideas for proposals.
  • Please vote and comment according to Python Level of the proposal. For Python Level, please refer to 《How to Choose the Python Level》。
  • Although accepting or rejecting is our standard as reviewers, but for PyCon TW, it's not only about accepting and rejecting, but also to foster the community. Please judge in a mindset of how to make the proposal better, not just yes or no.
  • Even though the review process is anonymous, we should respect author and follow PyCon TW Code of Conduct.

Details

  • Language options for proposals can be: English talk and non-English talk. When an author choose to do English talk, please use English to comment.
  • Due to the large volume of proposals over the years, we strongly recommend that you prioritize reviewing proposals that are more closely related to your technical background. After that, you can proceed to review proposals from fields you have experience with, in order.
  • If you encounter a field that you are not familiar with, you may choose not to review the proposal.

Voting and Acceptance

Voting

There are four different vote options: -1, -0, +0, +1.

Each vote option's meaning is as follows:

  • -1：Strong Reject This SHOULD NOT be in PyCon TW
  • -0：Weak Reject This IS ACCEPTABLE, BUT SLIGHTLY NOT RECOMMENDED to be in PyCon TW
  • +0：Weak Accept This IS ACCEPTABLE, AND SLIGHTLY RECOMMENDED to be in PyCon TW
  • +1：Strong Accept This SHOULD be in PyCon TW

Reviewer's Responsibility and Review Rate

Thank you very much for agreeing to serve as a reviewer for this conference. Your professional contributions are essential to ensuring the technical quality of the conference. We understand that you have a busy schedule and other personal commitments. However, your participation plays a critical role in enhancing the quality and fairness of the conference.

In order to ensure a smooth review process and to guarantee that each proposal is reviewed in a timely and thorough manner, we hope to achieve the following common goals:

1. Expectations for Review Rate

We encourage each reviewer to take responsibility for reviewing proposals in fields they are familiar with. The ideal review rate should reach at least 80% for the proposals within your area of expertise. This will ensure that most proposals receive a sufficient number of reviews, providing appropriate feedback to the authors and ensuring the quality of the conference program.

We understand that each reviewer’s schedule may vary, but we greatly appreciate your efforts in completing the review tasks as much as possible. Your dedication will play a crucial role in the smooth running of the conference and the enhancement of the program's quality.

2. The Importance of Review Quality

In addition to the quantity of reviews, we also emphasize the quality of reviews. Each proposal should be evaluated based on its technical value and contributions to open-source or other relevant aspects. We encourage you to provide detailed feedback and constructive suggestions, which will help authors improve their proposals and ensure that the conference showcases high-level research results.

3. In Case You Cannot Review on Time

If, for any reason, you are unable to complete a review on time due to scheduling or other issues, please inform us as soon as possible. We will do our best to assist you. You can contact us at program@python.tw.

Thank You for Your Support and Understanding

We truly appreciate the time you have dedicated to reviewing proposals amidst your busy work or personal schedule. Your contribution is invaluable, and we sincerely thank you for your support. We look forward to making this conference a smooth and outstanding event with your help.

Q & A

Q: If for some reason, I may know or guess the author of a proposal. In the first round, this may cause some conflict of interest, do I qualify to review this proposal?

A: Briefly speaking, yes, you can review these proposals. This kind of problem is common in review processes of science journals, even if they can guess the author, they still will review those paper. Anyways, you cannot 100% sure about the author of a proposal, there can always be a coincidence.

results matching ""

    No results matching ""