**This Call for Proposals will close on Feb 28th 2026 23:59 (CET).** [Convert to your timezone.](https://arewemeetingyet.com/Berlin/2026-02-28/23:59/JuliaCon%202026%20CfP%20Deadline)

We invite you to submit proposals to give a presentation at JuliaCon Global 2026. JuliaCon Global 2026 will be an **in person** conference held in Mainz, Germany, 10-15 August 2026. Presenting remotely will not be possible. If you would like to submit a video at any time to the [main Julia Language channel](https://www.youtube.com/julialanguage), please feel free to fill out this form [here](https://forms.gle/fN539wKFfjCFuuoV7).

JuliaCon has traditionally had talks that ranged from introductory to advanced, on topics related to various fields, and from developers and researchers from industry and academia. If you have worked with or on Julia in the past, JuliaCon is the best venue to share your work with the Julia community.

To get a feel for previous years’ presentations, take a look at our past programs and recordings: [2025](https://juliacon.org/2025), [2024](https://juliacon.org/2024), [2023](https://juliacon.org/2023), [2022](https://juliacon.org/2022), [2021](https://juliacon.org/2021), [2020](https://juliacon.org/2020), [2019](https://juliacon.org/2018), [2018](https://juliacon.org/2018), [2017](https://juliacon.org/2017), [2016](https://juliacon.org/2016), [2015](https://juliacon.org/2015), and [2014](https://juliacon.org/2014).


We are interested to hear about all topics that have to do with Julia. Examples include:

- Biology, bioinformatics, health, medicine, and health disparities
- Data analytics and visualization
- Finance and economics
- General computing
- Industrial applications
- Julia’s compiler, tooling, and ecosystem
- Numerical and mathematical optimization
- Scientific computing
- Computational physics & chemistry
- Software for quantum computation
- Software engineering best practices
- Statistics, machine learning, and AI
- Computational humanities and social science
- The most important consideration is whether the topic would be interesting to the Julia community.

If you are the developer or maintainer of a package, please consider submitting a **poster** about your package -- whether you are also submitting a long talk or short talk about it. We encourage **all** package maintainers to submit a poster about their package!

## Main Track vs Minisymposium

JuliaCon has multiple **minisymposia**, which are smaller conferences within the main JuliaCon, grouping presentations around a given theme.

All of these minisymposia accept submissions. **If your proposal fits the topic of a minisymposium, consider submitting your proposal there**.

You can find the list of minisymposia [here](https://pretalx.com/juliacon-2026/featured/).

Minisymposia are listed in the `track` menu in the PreTalx submission form. **To submit to a minisymposium, simply select it as the track for your proposal**.

Note that talks rejected by the minisymposium organizers may be reconsidered for the main JuliaCon track, hence there is no penalty in submitting to a minisymposium.

See the track description for more information about each minisymposium. The list of minis is below.

TODO make list here

## Proposal Types
This year, we will have 6 differentsession types under which you can submit proposals. See below for further details. Submitters of **long talks and short talks** can submit to a specific **minisymposium** if they wish. This can be done by choosing the appropriate minisymposium as track when submitting the talk.

### Talks
These sessions are primarily dedicated to sharing your technical work with the Julia community, whether it is related to software development, research, or applications from a specific field.

- **Long talks** are **25** minutes long, **plus** 5 minutes allocated for questions from the audience.
- Note: If you have given a full-length talk about a specific Julia package in the past, we prefer that you submit your "What's new with xyz.jl" talk as a short talk to give new packages more room to share. Of course, if there are significant changes we may consider that enough to warrant a full talk instead of a short talk.
- **Short talks** are **12** minutes long, **plus** 3 minutes allocated for audience questions. **Note** that short talks are longer this year than previously, to allow for more content and a less rushed experience!

### Workshops
A workshop is a three hour interactive hands-on session in which the presenter guides the audience through instructional material and shares code with attendees to allow them to follow easily. Workshops will take place before the official start date of the conference. Example topics on this track include package-specific tutorials or field-specific tutorials.

We also welcome "two part" workshop proposals of a session for beginners in the morning and more advanced users in the afternoon.

If your workshop **requires advance reservations**, for example for the allocation of credits to an HPC system or other resource, we ask that you clearly indicate this in the proposal.

**Note**: Workshops are likely to happen on the days before the main tracks of the conference.

### Posters
Posters will be presented in person at JuliaCon Global 2026, in a special poster session (day to be determined). Posters are an opportunity for authors of new & existing packages, students, and junior researchers to present their work that may not merit a full talk. **Any** package with a `README` can become a great poster, and **the committee encourages all package maintainers to submit a poster about their package**. You are welcome to submit a poster proposal in additional to a short or long talk proposal about the same package.

### Birds of a Feather / Interest groups
Birds of a feather sessions are breakout sessions for organized discussions around specific topics. For example, package maintainers can use these times to organize a meeting with and recruit contributors, or community members can organize discussion groups for Julia teaching materials or diversity recruitment. These sessions will be allocated a one hour timeslot, and will not be recorded.


## Submission details
We are using an anonymized submissions process, to avoid selection bias related to the speaker. While enforcing double blind is impossible since many submissions link to or reference public open source code, all efforts are made to ensure impartial review of submissions.

If you are submitting a workshop or birds-of-a-feather session that you think would particularly benefit from being held at a certain time, please note this in your proposal.

### Abstract vs Description

In the submission form you are asked to include an **abstract** and a **description** for your talk. The abstract should be a shorter self-contained summary of the talk, with a **maximum of 500 characters**. The description can contain more details, such as the structure of the talk, more background and so on. As a rule of thumb, write the abstract to spark interest and the description to give more details to the interested reader.

### Acceptable characters in submission
The abstract, description **and title** are used by our automated upload system to add your recorded presentation to YouTube. The use of non-ASCII characters (such as emoji) severely complicates this procedure. **In addition, the use of angle brackets is banned on YouTube**. Using these characters in your submission may result in the replacement of these characters with arbitrary ASCII characters, and emojis will be stripped.

### Note about AI use in proposals

The committee asks that all proposals are written with
the same care, attention, and effort that the potential
speaker would like them to be reviewed with. In particular, we ask that proposals not be generated with GenAI tools such as ChatGPT, Gemini, Claude, etc.
We ask that submitters respect the time and effort of
the reviewers by writing in their own words.

### Recordings and materials
JuliaCon 2026 will be an in-person conference. In-person talks will be live-streamed to YouTube. We also ask you to make your materials and recording available under a Creative Commons (default: no commercial reuse) or other open source license.

### Proceeding Publications
Presenters will have the chance to have their work published as part of a JuliaCon proceedings publication. For more details, see the [JuliaCon Proceedings website](https://proceedings.juliacon.org/).

### Registration for speakers
Speakers must register for the conference. More information will be available at [the JuliaCon 2026 website](https://juliacon.org/2026/) as registration opens. Check there for more details.

### How to contact us
You can reach us with questions and concerns at (juliacon@julialang.org).

## Conference Code of Conduct
JuliaCon is dedicated to providing a positive conference experience for all attendees, regardless of gender, gender identity and expression, sexual orientation, disability, physical appearance, body size, race, age, religion, or national and ethnic origin. We encourage respectful and considerate interactions between attendees and do not tolerate harassment of conference participants in any form. For example, offensive or sexual language and imagery is not appropriate for any conference venue, including formal talks and networking between sessions. Conference participants violating these standards may be sanctioned or expelled from the conference (without a refund) at the discretion of the conference organizers. Our anti-harassment policy can be found [here](https://juliacon.org/2026/coc/).

## Appendix

### Review Guidelines and Process
For reference, below are the guidelines and processes that readers will use in reviewing your submission.

The role of reviewers is to ensure the quality of the content presented at JuliaCon.

#### Conflict of interest
In any case of conflict of interest, the reviewer commits to withdraw from a review and signal it to the organizers to find a replacement quickly. No reviewer should enter a review on any talk in which they are an author or have another form of conflict of interest. See the [PNAS guidelines](https://www.pnas.org/author-center/editorial-and-journal-policies) for a definition and examples. Conflicts of interest include any work or authors with which the reviewer has "any association that poses or could be perceived as a financial or intellectual conflict of interest" (PNAS guidelines above).

### Code of Conduct
The reviewer commits to reading and respecting the conference [Code of Conduct](https://juliacon.org/2026/coc/) in the assessment and all communications during the review process.

If a submitted abstract does not comply with the Code of Conduct, the reviewer should refer it to the organizing committee.

### Criteria for the reviews
Failure to meet these criteria will result in lower scores.

1. The abstract should be easy to read and understandable for someone not working on the same topic. The title should make it easy to identify the topic of the content.

2. The abstract presented should be technically sound to the best of the reviewer's knowledge.

3. The subject should be of interest for JuliaCon, including but not limited to the topics listed on the [Call for Proposals](https://juliacon.org/2026/cfp/), such as:

- Biology, bioinformatics, health, medicine, and health disparities
- Data analytics and visualization
- Finance and economics
- General computing
- Industrial applications
- Julia’s compiler, tooling, and ecosystem
- Numerical and mathematical optimization
- Scientific computing
- Software engineering best practices
- Statistics, machine learning, and AI
- Computational humanities and social science

4. If the format requested by the author (experience, short talk, long talk, workshop, poster, minisymposium, birds-of-a-feather) does not seem appropriate, the reviewer can signal it and suggest another one.

5. Use cases of Julia in an enterprise environment are in general of interest to the conference. In particular, feedback on product development using or interacting with Julia and its ecosystem are welcome. However, talks and posters are not a suitable venue for product placement.

### Scoring Criteria
The following are the criteria by which scores (1-5) should be given:

1. Applicability to the Julia community. Would users of Julia be interested in this talk for either its methods or its results? Higher scoring proposals should be of wide interest to Julia users.

2. Contributions to the community. Is this a new package for people to use? Higher scoring proposals should be code or ideas that others can use.

3. Clarity. What is the purpose of this talk? What will people learn? Higher scoring proposals should be clear as to their purpose.

4. Significance to the community. Is this something that will change the way a lot of other people use Julia or its package ecosystem? Higher scoring proposals should be more significant to Julia users. Note that this does not require scientific significance, just significance as a software or tutorial to users of Julia.

5. Topic diversity. As a community we value the diversity of applications. Proposals which are targeting new areas and fields for the Julia community to expand should be given some credit.

6. Soundness. Proposals should be technically sound. Glaring incorrectness should be highlighted and taken into account.

7. Classification. The criteria will be stricter for longer presentations.

### Review Process
- The workshop proposals will be curated by the program committee. All of the workshop proposers with proposals meeting a certain level of scrutiny will be contacted and a coherent workshop schedule will be decided on based on these submissions.

- Long talks, short talks, and posters will be judged together in two rounds. In the first round, all reviewers will be given a selection of X many proposals to review, such that every proposal gets 3 reviews. Every review should include a score and a comment, at least a 1 sentence overview of their thoughts on the proposal. If any reviewers dropped out, we will have a second round to add more reviewers to those proposals by re-distributing to the active reviewers. After this round, the committee will ensure that each proposal has had 3 reviews.

- After the two review stages is the selection stage. The top proposals will be accepted and the bottom proposals will be rejected or re-classified and counted as a middle proposal. All proposals in the middle will then be marked for extra consideration. The amount of "top proposals" to be considered for stage 1 selection is dependent on the number of available speaker slots vs the number of proposals, and generally is reserved for average scores of 4+ without any comments of concern.

- In the second selection stage, the review committee will take the reviewer scores, comments, and re-classifications to decide the final acceptances. Rejected proposals will be discussed for re-classification before a full rejection.

- After all proposals have been classified, acceptances and rejections will be released.

- Some slots might be reserved for Google Summer of Code students to present their work. This is kept for later in the process since the approval/rejection of proposals is BEFORE GSoC students are accepted. These proposals will be directly reviewed by the review committee.

### Review Comments
Each review should include a comment that justifies the scores that were given. Comments **must** be more detailed than "this looks like a good talk" or "looks good." For example, a comment should be like:

- "This proposal identifies a specific target audience (i.e. Julia HPC developers and users) with important updates about [relevant package], which is widely used in that community. The speakers plan to identify opportunities for new contributors and applications to other Julia communities, so I recommend accepting this talk proposal."

- "While it seems to be state-of-the-art, the closedness and cost of the software makes the talk seem only targeted at a small enterprise audience and not of general Julia user interest. If the proposal focused more on their experience using Julia rather than their product, I would have seen it as more applicable to this conference".

- We ask reviewers to strongly consider whether long talks should be short talks or posters, and indicate if they believe the committee should accept the proposal as one of these session types.

We ask all reviewers to devote the care and attention to each proposal they review that they would wish be applied to their own proposals.

### Note about AI use in reviews

- We ask that all reviewers write their own review comments, i.e. that GenAI tools such as ChatGPT or Gemini are **not** used for the creation of review feedback.
- We ask that reviewers **not** accuse submitters of creating their proposal with GenAI without very strong evidence (e.g. the proposal begins with "As a large language model..."). Many human beings have a writing style that can resemble that of GenAI tools, and incorrect accusations of having written a proposal using GenAI can be very demoralizing for a potential speaker.