We invite you to submit proposals to give a talk at JuliaCon Local Paris 2025. It will be an in-person conference held in Paris, France, on October 2nd and 3rd 2025.

You can reach us with questions and concerns at paris25@julialang.org.

Topics

JuliaCon has traditionally welcomed talks that ranged from introductory to advanced, on topics related to various fields, by developers and researchers from industry and academia. If you have worked 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: 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021, 2022, 2023, and 2024.

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

• 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.

Duplicate submissions

We will entertain proposals that have also been submitted to JuliaCon Global 2025 in Pittsburgh, but there is no guarantee of acceptance in Paris.

Proposal Types

This year, we will have 4 different types under which you can submit proposals, see below for further details.

Talks (full or lightning)

This track is 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.

• Full talks are 30 minutes long, including 5 minutes allocated for audience questions.
• Lightning talks are 10 minutes long, including 2 minutes allocated for audience questions.

We welcome talks either in English or in French.

Tutorials

This track is dedicated to accessible and interactive overviews of a given subject related to Julia.
Such presentations can focus on the language itself, a part of the package ecosystem, or good programming practices.
Importantly, they should be understandable for the vast majority of the JuliaCon audience.

Tutorials are 1 hour long, including 10 minutes allocated for audience questions. They should be given in English.

Posters

Posters will be presented in person, during one or several poster sessions. Posters are an opportunity for new & existing packages, students, and junior researchers to present their work that may not merit a full talk.

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.

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.

Recordings

Presenting remotely will not be possible and talks will not be recorded. If you would like to submit a video at any time to the Julia Language YouTube channel, please feel free to fill out this form.

Proceedings

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.

Registration for speakers

Speakers must register for the conference. More information will be available on the conference as registration opens.

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.

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 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 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.

• 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.

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

• The subject should be of interest for JuliaCon, including (but not limited to) the topics listed on the Call for Proposals.

• If the format requested by the author does not seem appropriate, the reviewer can signal it and suggest another one.

• 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 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. 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.

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

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

6. 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.

All other things being equal, the criteria will be stricter for longer presentations.

Review process

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

• Full talks, lightning talks and posters will be judged together in two rounds. In the first round, all reviewers will be given a selection of 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.

Review comments

Each review should include a comment that justifies the scores that were given. Comments should 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 talks should be lightning or poster, 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.

You can enter proposals until 2025-05-15 00:00 (Europe/Paris), 1 month, 1 week from now.