Get involved

Join the Programme Committee

We are assembling a diverse Programme Committee to provide double-blind reviews across the biology and chemistry tracks. Reviewers of all levels of seniority are welcome and will be acknowledged on the website.

Light reviewer load

Reviewer loads are capped at three submissions, each receiving up to three double-blind reviews.

Careful COI handling

Conflicts are managed through OpenReview disclosure boxes and organiser-managed assignment.

All levels welcome

From PhD students to faculty and industry researchers. Reviewers are credited on the site.

Sign-up

Programme Committee application

Sending your details is an expression of interest, not a commitment either way. The organisers read every submission and will reach out if your expertise matches what comes in.

What we welcome

SIMBIOCHEM is a place for scientific discussion, not only for finished results. We actively welcome early-stage work: methods that look promising but are not yet validated in the lab, partial or negative results others can learn from, and early ideas that could steer where the community goes next.

Experienced and early-career researchers are equally welcome, from academia and from industry. Work being early is not a mark against it here — we only ask that you are clear about what has been shown and what has not.

As a reviewer, you would score these same three criteria from 1 to 5:

Novelty
Does the paper present a genuinely new idea, direction or perspective?
Clarity
Is the paper easy to understand and assess? Are its claims, limits and figures clear?
Impact
Could the work meaningfully influence future research or practice?

What we ask, and what we promise

  • We aim to allocate no more than three papers per reviewer, and will do our best to hold that line.
  • We put real effort into matching papers to your stated tracks and expertise, rather than assigning at random.
  • You will have a designated organiser to contact directly with any question or doubt — including if you spot a conflict after an assignment lands.
  • Reviewing is double-blind, and reviewers are credited on the website.
However you would like to be credited on the website. Preferred or shortened names are completely fine.
In that order, comma-separated — e.g. “Tufts University, Chemistry, Postdoc”. Separate a second affiliation with a semicolon, and write “unaffiliated” if none applies. We use this to spot conflicts of interest before assigning you anything.
Please use the address on your OpenReview account — that is how review invitations reach you, and a mismatch is the single most common reason someone never gets assigned. An institutional address is also less likely to be filtered as spam.
Reviewers of every level are welcome — this only helps us balance the load across the committee.
Preferred tracks *
Pick both if your work spans them. The more you tick, the more we have to match you against.
Comma-separated keywords. This is the field we actually match papers against, so specific beats broad — “free energy perturbation” is more useful to us than “chemistry”.
Somewhere we can see your recent work. Google Scholar is ideal; LinkedIn, GitHub or a personal page are all fine.
If you know it, this saves us matching you by hand. You will find it on your OpenReview profile page — it starts with a tilde.

Prefer email? Reach the organisers at workshop@simbiochem.com.