Power Systems Computation Conference 2026, Cyprus

Two years ago, I wrote a post about attending my first Power Systems Computation Conference (PSCC) in Paris-Saclay, France. I was happy just to get through the notoriously strict review process. And I still remember the relief of presenting my paper there. Back then, I described how you need both luck and experience to deliver your research in a way that leaves reviewers impressed.

This year, I tested my luck again. Same highly competitive conference. Different location. This time it’s Limassol, Cyprus. A beautiful beach resort hotel with sea views. (Yes, the headline picture is the view from my room.) This pushed the interest in the conference even higher. I heard colleagues from different universities calling this year’s PSCC a must-go. Basically, it’s a free holiday: you get the event, the sea, the weather, the food. You can even stay a few extra days to explore the island. All of it covered by research grants.

Over 700 papers were submitted this time. But, as usual, the conference capped the total number of presentations at 220. Which meant a lot of researchers dreaming of a Cyprus trip were going to be disappointed. For instance, my own team at Imperial submitted 4 manuscripts. All of them were solid works. Our manager was already sketching out how we would all travel together. Then, in February, rejection emails started landing. Only my manuscript was accepted, while my colleagues had to resubmit their papers elsewhere. That was the end of the group trip. So I got to represent my team at PSCC and enjoy Cyprus alone.

But how did I get my paper accepted? Well, I used valuable experience from my previous PSCC submissions and worked hard to produce a near-perfect paper. Here’s my PSCC publication recipe:

A problem you’ve already invested in. It is much better to write about ideas, models, or problems you’ve already worked on (or at least thought about). Even better if you already have preliminary results or a clear vision for the narrative. Otherwise, you would be generating results and writing the manuscript from scratch in a few months, which is a shaky start for a PSCC submission. In my case, I selected my long-standing research idea and worked hard on it for several months. The topic was data valuation in distribution networks. More specifically, methods for estimating the value of electric vehicle load forecasts. I started working on such problems almost 6 years ago at Skoltech, with my PhD advisors. So I already knew the problem and had some preliminary results before I even started the draft.
Putting the technical component forward. As the conference’s name suggests, it’s about computation and modelling. Reviewers love to see technical solutions to power system problems. It can be in the form of equations explained in the manuscript, or novel approaches and tools published on GitHub, or both. The simulations have to be convincing too: case studies defined clearly, results shown through effective visualisations. My paper had 27 equations in total, which is quite a lot. But I knew how to present them. I grouped most of the optimisation-related equations into table-like blocks and called them models. These blocks took almost a full page. So when a reviewer opens the paper, they can immediately see the massive modelling section and get the feeling: “hm, serious modelling going on here.” They can then find the details and explanations in the text. I did the same with the results. I grouped my main simulations into blocks of subfigures, which again creates the impression of a massive technical analysis. I mean, it was massive. But I wasn’t hiding it. I was putting the technical things forward.
Clarity. You have a complex modelling approach with dozens of equations? Good. But the complexity can backfire. These equations can create a mess that will annoy the reviewer. Why are you introducing these variables? What goes first, and where’s the link to methods A, B, C? You know how to navigate your equations. But the reviewer doesn’t. Help them! Make your modelling sections clear and consistent. In my paper, I drew a framework diagram that explains the forecast valuation problem and walks through the modelling stages. This diagram goes as Fig. 1, on page 2. That is, I am showing it almost immediately, even before the equations themselves. I do the same thing throughout the paper: I explain what happens, why, and in what order, before anything actually appears.
Creativity. Many papers in this field follow the same narrative: “We proposed a data-driven modelling framework, see equations (1)-(25). Its effectiveness is demonstrated in Section V.” Try to be a bit more creative. Find a unique angle for presenting your approach. By the time reviewers reach your paper, they’ve already ranked several manuscripts that basically say “here is our model.” And now they open yours. Is it another plain modelling work, or is there an interesting story in it? Reviewers want to hear stories and see useful insights. So give them a story. In my paper, I went provocative and departed from the conventional modelling narrative. I used a problem-focused narrative revolving around the challenges of data valuation. I wanted to show why estimating the usefulness of forecasts is so difficult. My title became “Penalising Forecast Accuracy? Data Valuation Challenges in Power Distribution Systems”. I am asking a question. I am hinting that there will be a story inside. Then on page 1, I list the challenges I found as bullet points, in bold. This connects to the title and the abstract, starting my story.

One more thing about the PSCC review process: every submitted paper falls into one of three categories. Based on the average scores from the reviewers, your manuscript ends up labelled as:

Clear reject. This is a sad category. Reviewers weren’t convinced by the paper and raised too many concerns. The editor doesn’t believe that you can fix them all as part of this submission. You can’t revise the paper or argue back. The PSCC doors are closed for that year. I’ve been there twice. It’s a discouraging experience.
Clear accept. The opposite: reviewers give high scores and don’t flag any critical problems. The paper is accepted, and you get a chance to extend and improve it based on reviewers’ feedback.
Marginal, to be decided. This is the tricky one. Many submissions get average scores and can’t be accepted or rejected straight away. So, the PSCC panel schedules meetings to go through each marginal paper and decide its fate. I’ve heard that it takes them up to two full days of meetings to work through all marginal submissions.

Obviously, this process is a bit random and not perfect. A single reviewer can drag down your average score. The panel may give your paper a thumbs-down. That’s why luck is such a big part of the PSCC game.

But luck isn’t everything. Truly high-quality papers tend to be accepted. I know that. This year, my paper was in “clear accept”. I worked really hard to make it professional and useful, and it paid off. So, invest a lot in your paper, show off its technical side, make it clear and creative, and you will avoid the PSCC panel’s Russian roulette.

Here is the conference version of the paper (this is what reviewers and editors see). The initial submission was 9 pages, and after it was accepted, I extended it to 11. It’s better to respect the page limit so you don’t annoy the reviewers. Then, after the conference, the paper was published in the EPSR journal here.

I also developed a repository to support the paper. It’s really worth doing these days. A GitHub link makes reviewers more confident in your work, as they can see that the results are reproducible. I know that the machine learning community already has a “one paper, one GitHub” habit. But the power systems community is still lagging behind.

Conceptual findings, in one picture. Due to physical network constraints, less accurate forecasts may appear more valuable than precise ones, while some forecast providers may even be penalised:

The venue had a really strange mix of work and holiday atmosphere. Many hotel guests were there to enjoy the Limassol beaches. At the same time, more than 400 conference attendees came for research and networking. In one place, you could see presenters with their slides, academics chatting over a cup of coffee, and the blue sea through the window. I’m not sure I’ve experienced a similar conference vibe.

Also, the hotel had a cool panoramic lift. You feel like you’re flying down into the conference lobby:

The main hall of PSCC 2026, filling up before the first morning speaker.

After the event, we rented a car and stayed for three more days to explore the island. The first stop was Mount Olympus. I didn’t expect Cyprus to have a viewpoint at nearly 2,000 metres! The poor car was barely moving uphill. (Don’t rent the cheapest manual, like I did)

Larnaca Salt Lake:

The Church of Saint Lazarus:

Amazing cocktails and sea views near Protaras:

An unusual last stop was MUSAN (museum of underwater sculpture). We didn’t plan the visit, just found it while scrolling the map near Ayia Napa. It turns out that you can see the sculptures without a diving tour. A snorkelling mask is enough. But it’s not an easy experience. The sculptures are placed about 200 metres out from the beach. So be ready to swim at least 400 metres round trip that day. And they are 10 metres deep! Yes, you can see them from the surface, but getting close is physically challenging. I was holding my breath for 2 minutes to dive there. A few times, near the bottom, I felt like I’d run out of air soon and rushed back up. So yeah, not the safest museum. There are no lifeguards around. Don’t come here alone and don’t freedive deep if unprepared.