• Click on the Pull Requests Tab and browse to find the papers assigned to you
• After reading the paper, you can start the review conversation by simply commenting on the paper, taking into consideration this set of suggested review criteria.
• Authors will then respond to the comments and/or modify the paper to address the comments.
• This will begin an iterative review process where authors and reviewers can discuss the evolving submission.
• Reviewers may also apply one of the labels 'needs-more-review', 'pending-comment', or 'unready' to flag the current state of the review process.
• Only once a reviewer is satisfied that the review process is complete and the submission should be accepted to the proceedings, should they affix the 'ready' label.
• Reviewers should come to a final 'ready', 'unready' decision before July 4th at 18:00 PST.

Submissions must be received by May 30th at 23:59 PST, but modifications are allowed during the open review period which ends July 5th at 18:00 PST. Submissions are considered received once a Pull Request has been opened following the procedure outlines below.

Papers are formatted using reStructuredText and the compiled version should be no longer than 8 pages, including figures. Here are the steps to produce a paper:

• Fork the scipy_proceedings repository on GitHub.

• Check out the 2016 branch (git checkout 2016).

• An example paper is provided in papers/00_vanderwalt. Create a new directory papers/firstname_surname, copy the example paper into it, and modify to your liking.

• Run ./make_paper.sh papers/firstname_surname to compile your paper to PDF (requires LaTeX, docutils, Python--see below). The output appears in output/firstname_surname/paper.pdf.

• Once you are ready to submit your paper, file a pull request on GitHub. Please ensure that you file against the correct branch--your branch should be named 2016, and the pull-request should be against our 2016 branch.

• Please do not modify any files outside of your paper directory.

• All figures and tables should have captions.
• License conditions on images and figures must be respected (Creative Commons, etc.).
• Code snippets should be formatted to fit inside a single column without overflow.
• Avoid custom LaTeX markup where possible.

A small subcommittee of the SciPy 2016 organizing committee has created this set of suggested review criteria to help guide authors and reviewers alike. Suggestions and amendments to these review criteria are enthusiastically welcomed via discussion or pull request.

Please refer to the example paper in papers/00_vanderwalt for examples of how to:

• Label figures, equations and tables
• Use math markup
• Include code snippets

• IEEETran (often packaged as texlive-publishers, or download from CTAN LaTeX class
• AMSmath LaTeX classes (included in most LaTeX distributions)
• docutils 0.8 or later (easy_install docutils)
• pygments for code highlighting (easy_install pygments)

On Debian-like distributions:

sudo apt-get install python-docutils texlive-latex-base texlive-publishers \
                     texlive-latex-extra texlive-fonts-recommended

• Due to a bug in the Debian packaging of pdfannotextractor, you may have to execute pdfannotextractor --install to fetch the PDFBox library.

Thanks to the great and wonderful Katy Huff, there is a server online building the open pull requests here. You may be able to pull a built PDF for review from there.

To build the whole proceedings, see the Makefile in the publisher directory.