All conferences / ICTAC
ICTAC
International Colloquium on Theoretical Aspects of Computing
Editions
| Year | Ed. | Held | Where | Paper deadline | Accepted | Rate |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2026 | 23 | 11β13 Nov 2026 | Bariloche π¦π· | 22 Jun +7 days | — | — |
| 2025 | 22 | 24β28 Nov 2025 | Marrakech π²π¦ | 9 Jul +18 days | 25 / 64 | 39% |
| 2024 | 21 | 25β29 Nov 2024 | Bangkok πΉπ | 30 Jun +9 days | 21 / 46 | 46% |
| 2023 | 20 | 4β8 Dec 2023 | Lima π΅πͺ | 2 Jul +16 days | 22 / 39 | 56% |
| 2022 | 19 | 27β29 Sep 2022 | Tbilisi π¬πͺ | 28 May | 25 / 52 | 48% |
| 2021 | 18 | 6β10 Sep 2021 | Online | 14 May +7 days | — | — |
| 2020 | 17 | 30 Nov β 4 Dec 2020 | Macao π²π΄ | 17 Jul +21 days | — | — |
| 2019 | 16 | 30 Oct β 4 Nov 2019 | Hammamet πΉπ³ | 26 May +14 days | — | — |
| 2018 | 15 | 16β19 Oct 2018 | Stellenbosch πΏπ¦ | 11 May | 25 / 59 | 42% |
| 2017 | 14 | 23β27 Oct 2017 | HΓ Nα»i π»π³ | 22 Apr +10 days | 17 / 40 | 42% |
| 2016 | 13 | 24β31 Oct 2016 | Taipei πΉπΌ | 16 May +15 days | 23 / 60 | 38% |
| 2015 | 12 | 29β31 Oct 2015 | Cali π¨π΄ | 19 Jun | — | — |
| 2014 | 11 | 17β20 Sep 2014 | Bucharest π·π΄ | 6 Apr | — | — |
A missing year does not mean the conference did not meet: coverage before 2014 has not been verified.
Acceptance rate over time
- 2025 39% 25/64
- 2024 46% 21/46
- 2023 56% 22/39
- 2022 48% 25/52
- 2018 42% 25/59
- 2017 42% 17/40
- 2016 38% 23/60
Scale runs to 60%; the mid-line marks 30%. No figure published for 2014, 2015, 2019, 2020, 2021, 2026.
Submissions
Scaled to this conference's own busiest year (64), so the shape is comparable across its editions but not between conferences.
How it has reviewed and published
| Practice | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Proceedings | • | • | • | • | • | • | • | • | • | • | • | • | • |
A blank cell means nobody has checked that year, not that the answer is no. Licences are read as recorded on the edition, never inherited from the publisher.
Spotted something wrong on this page? Tell us, with a source if you have one ↗