ReviewerCalls

Curated self-nomination calls for reviewers and committee members of CCF- and CORE-ranked conferences.

About ReviewerCalls

What is ReviewerCalls?

ReviewerCalls is a curated resource for academic researchers seeking opportunities to join conference program committees and reviewer panels. We track and aggregate self-nomination calls from CCF- and CORE-ranked computer science conferences, making it easier for researchers to find and participate in peer review activities.

How It Works

ReviewerCalls operates through three simple steps:

  1. Discovery: We systematically search conference websites for self-nomination and call-for-reviewers announcements.
  2. Verification: Each call is manually reviewed to ensure accuracy, relevance, and active status.
  3. Publication: Verified calls are published on this website with direct links to official nomination pages, organized by conference, deadline, and reviewer role.

Data Coverage

Our database includes opportunities from 321+ conferences across computer science and related fields. All conferences are ranked by:

This ensures you're considering participation with conferences of recognized quality and impact in your field.

Reviewer Roles Guide

Conference peer review involves several distinct roles, each with different responsibilities and qualifications. Here's what each role typically means:

Reviewer / External Reviewer

The primary role in peer review. Reviewers read and evaluate submitted papers against criteria like novelty, technical soundness, clarity, and significance. No prior committee experience typically required. Reviewers usually have 2-4 weeks to complete a review.

PC / Program Committee Member

Senior researchers who review papers and actively participate in acceptance decisions. PC members typically attend the conference (or virtual meeting) to discuss borderline papers. Usually requires several years of research experience and previous reviewing.

SPC / Senior Program Committee Member

Experienced researchers who oversee a specific topic area. SPCs manage multiple reviewers, help resolve conflicts, and lead acceptance decisions. Typically requires 10+ years of research experience and proven expertise in a subfield.

AC / Area Chair

Similar to SPC role, an Area Chair manages a specific research area. Responsibilities include recruiting reviewers, moderating discussions, and making final accept/reject recommendations. Usually for very experienced researchers.

SAC / Senior Area Chair

A leadership role overseeing multiple Area Chairs and their areas. SACrepresent the conference and help make high-level acceptance decisions. Reserved for top-tier researchers with extensive conference experience.

AEC / Artifact Evaluation Committee

Members who evaluate software, code, datasets, and other research artifacts submitted by authors. Requires strong technical background but is less demanding than paper review. Growing opportunity for mid-career researchers.

Emergency Reviewer

Reviewers recruited on short notice to fill gaps when assigned reviewers withdraw or fail to submit reviews. Requires flexibility and quick turnaround, but a great way to gain reviewing experience.

WO / Workshop Organizer & TO / Tutorial Organizer

Workshop Organizers propose and run focused workshops on specific topics, managing the workshop's own review process. Tutorial Organizers design and deliver educational sessions. Both roles require deep domain expertise and organizational skills.

SV / Student Volunteer, DCM / Doctoral Consortium Mentor & CO / Competition Organizer

Student Volunteers assist with conference logistics and gain exposure to the research community. Doctoral Consortium Mentors provide guidance to PhD students presenting their research proposals. Competition Organizers design and run shared tasks or challenges. These roles offer diverse ways to contribute beyond traditional paper review.

Typical Reviewer Call Timeline

Most conferences follow a similar recruitment timeline:

  • 10-6 months before: Call for PC members opens (earliest opportunity)
  • 6-4 months before: Call for reviewers / broader invitation period
  • 4-2 months before: Review period begins; late recruitment for specialized areas
  • 2-0 months before: Final recruitment for last-minute needs

Keep in mind that different conferences follow different schedules. Some have rolling recruitment, while others have strict deadlines. Always check the official conference website for your target event.

Frequently Asked Questions

Q: Am I qualified to be a reviewer?

The answer depends on the conference and your background. Most top conferences accept reviewers with an active research background (graduate student level or higher). Minimum qualifications typically include:

  • A research degree (Masters or PhD in a related field) or equivalent professional experience
  • Active participation in your research community
  • Published work (though this varies by conference)
  • Expertise in the conference's scope areas

Don't be discouraged if you're early in your career! Many conferences welcome graduate students and junior researchers. Check each conference's specific requirements.

Q: What's the difference between a Reviewer and PC Member?

While both evaluate papers, the roles differ significantly:

  • Reviewer: You evaluate papers independently and provide detailed feedback. Typically one-time engagement, remote, more flexible schedule.
  • PC Member: You're part of the decision-making process. Typically requires attending a meeting (virtual or in-person) to discuss controversial papers and vote on acceptance.

PC membership is more prestigious but also more demanding. Reviewer roles are a good way to get started in peer review.

Q: How do I apply to become a reviewer?

The process varies by conference, but typically:

  1. Find the self-nomination call on the conference website (or through ReviewerCalls!)
  2. Click the provided link (usually a Google Form, OpenReview page, or ARR platform)
  3. Fill out your profile: research interests, expertise areas, past review experience
  4. Submit. You'll usually receive a confirmation email
  5. Wait for the conference to contact you with assignments (usually 2-4 weeks before papers arrive)

Some conferences (like ACL) use centralized platforms (ARR). Others have their own forms. Review the specific call for detailed instructions.

Q: Are the calls on ReviewerCalls accurate?

We manually verify all calls before publication, checking:

  • Links are valid and from official conference sources
  • Deadlines haven't passed
  • The call is genuinely open for nominations

However, conference websites and deadlines can change. Always verify the deadline and requirements on the official conference website before applying. We do our best to keep data current, but we recommend confirming details directly with the conference.

Q: How do I submit a call we're missing?

Great question! We'd love your help. You can submit a missing call through our GitHub repository:

  1. Visit our GitHub page
  2. Open a new issue with the conference name and call link
  3. Include: conference name, year, role (Reviewer/PC/etc), and the official call link
  4. We'll verify and add it within 1-3 days

Alternatively, you can fork the repository and submit a pull request with the new call. Check our CONTRIBUTING.md for detailed guidelines.

Q: How are conferences ranked (CCF / CORE)?

These are independent ranking systems for computer science conferences:

  • CCF (Chinese Computer Federation): Ranks conferences A (highest), B, C based on impact, visibility, and importance in the field
  • CORE (Council of Australasian Research in Computing): Rates conferences A* (exceptional), A (excellent), B (good), C (recognized)

Rankings help assess conference prestige and impact. Higher-ranked conferences are generally more selective for paper acceptance. However, excellent work can be published at conferences of any tier.

Q: What should I expect as a first-time reviewer?

Reviewing for the first time can feel daunting, but here's what typically happens:

  • You'll receive 3-4 papers to review (one round, 2-4 weeks)
  • Each review takes 2-5 hours depending on paper length and complexity
  • You'll write a structured review: summary, strengths, weaknesses, and recommendation
  • Your review will help authors improve their work (even if rejected)
  • The experience is valuable for understanding publication standards and improving your own research

Don't worry about being "too junior." Program committees actively mentor first-time reviewers. If you get stuck, it's okay to ask for guidance from the chair or area chair.