Yvonne Jansen
Kasper Hornbæk
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.
- Misc authors. 2015. Ethics of publishing received peer reviews. Online. (2015). http://tinyurl.com/stack-reviewsGoogle Scholar
- Jeffrey Bardzell. 2012. A Position on Peer Reviewing in HCI. Blog post. (27 Jan 2012). http://goo.gl/QDsJVrGoogle Scholar
- Pierre Dragicevic. 2016. Fair Statistical Communication in HCI. In Modern Statistical Methods for HCI, J. Robertson and M.C. Kaptein (Eds.). Springer. In press.Google Scholar
- Jonathan Grudin. 2013. Varieties of conference experience. The Information Society 29, 2 (2013), 71--77. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Ken Hinckley. 2015. So You're a Program Committee Member Now: On Excellence in Reviews and MetaReviews and Championing Submitted Work That Has Merit. Online article. (28 Jan 2015). http://goo.gl/wS5bk2Google Scholar
- Joseph Lindley and Paul Coulton. 2016. Peer review and design fiction: "Honestly, they're not just made up". In CHI Extended Abstracts (Alt.CHI). ACM.Google Scholar
- ACM SIGCHI. 2005. CHI Reviewing: A Guide and Examples. Online. (2005). http://www.chi2005.org/cfp/reviewing.htmlGoogle Scholar
- ACM SIGCHI. 2015. Guide to Reviewing Papers and Notes. Online. (2015). http://goo.gl/jDlDWkGoogle Scholar
- Suresh Venkatasubramanian. 2016. Who owns a review, and who's having the conversation? Online. (2016). http://tinyurl.com/suresh-reviewsGoogle Scholar
- VGTC. 2009. Ethics Guidelines for Reviewers. Online. (11 May 2009). http://goo.gl/bVAxAzGoogle Scholar
Index Terms
- What Did Authors Value in the CHI'16 Reviews They Received?
Recommendations
Session details: BigScholar'16
WWW '16 Companion: Proceedings of the 25th International Conference Companion on World Wide WebIt is our great pleasure to welcome you to BigScholar 2016, The Third WWW Workshop on Big Scholarly Data: Towards the Web of Scholars. The workshop is held in Montreal, Canada, April 2016, as part of the 25th International World Wide Web Conference (WWW ...
Synopsis of the ASPLOS '16 Wild and Crazy Ideas (WACI) Invited-Speakers Session
ASPLOS'16The Wild and Crazy Ideas (WACI) session is a longstanding tradition at ASPLOS, soliciting talks that consist of forward-looking, visionary, inspiring, creative, far out or just plain amazing ideas presented in an exciting way. (Amusing elements in the ...
Comments