Abstract
Peer-review is key to assessing work in HCI conferences. The content and process of peer-review, and how it moves scholarship forward or impedes it, are much discussed but little data is available. We provide initial data from surveying 46 authors who submitted papers and notes to CHI 2016, and asking them what they found helpful and unhelpful in their reviews. Responses were overall positive, and showed that authors appreciated encouragement, ideas for related work, and seeing their work fairly assessed. At the same time, some authors commented that reviews may not be inclusive of new approaches, may contain insufficient details, and occasionally seem unreasonable. They also noted issues specific to the rebuttal process. We discuss how instructions for reviewers could be improved, and link our findings to ongoing debates on peer review.
| Original language | English |
|---|---|
| Title of host publication | Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference - extended abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems |
| Number of pages | 11 |
| Publisher | Association for Computing Machinery |
| Publication date | 2016 |
| Pages | 596-606 |
| ISBN (Electronic) | 978-1-4503-4082-3 |
| DOIs | |
| Publication status | Published - 2016 |
| Event | 34th Annual CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems - San Jose Convention Center, San Jose, United States Duration: 7 May 2016 → 12 May 2016 Conference number: 34 |
Conference
| Conference | 34th Annual CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems |
|---|---|
| Number | 34 |
| Location | San Jose Convention Center |
| Country/Territory | United States |
| City | San Jose |
| Period | 07/05/2016 → 12/05/2016 |
Keywords
- CHI
- Peer review
- Surveys
- User studies