Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
SIG discusses peer review challenges in HCI conferences, aiming to enhance submission evaluation and reviewer education.
The HCI research community grows bigger each year, refining and expanding its boundaries in new ways. The ability to effectively review submissions is critical to the growth of CHI and related conferences. The review process is designed to produce a consistent supply of fair, high-quality reviews without overloading individual reviewers; yet, after each cycle, concerns are raised about limitations of the process. Every year, participants are left wondering why their papers were not accepted (or why they were). This SIG will explore reviewing through a critical and constructive lens, discussing current successes and future opportunities in the CHI review process. Goals will include actionable conclusions about ways to improve the system, potential alternative peer models, and the creation of materials to educate newcomer reviewers.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Bernstein et al. (2012) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 8 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: