What Did Authors Value in the CHI'16 Reviews They Received?

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.
Type de document :
Documents associés à des manifestations scientifiques -- Hal-inria+
Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems, May 2016, San Jose, United States. pp.596 - 608, 2016, <10.1145/2851581.2892576>
Liste complète des métadonnées


https://hal.inria.fr/hal-01405042
Contributeur : Pierre Dragicevic <>
Soumis le : mardi 29 novembre 2016 - 16:41:05
Dernière modification le : samedi 18 février 2017 - 01:14:47

Fichier

reviews - author version.pdf
Fichiers produits par l'(les) auteur(s)

Identifiants

Citation

Yvonne Jansen, Kasper Hornbaek, Pierre Dragicevic. What Did Authors Value in the CHI'16 Reviews They Received?. Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems, May 2016, San Jose, United States. pp.596 - 608, 2016, <10.1145/2851581.2892576>. <hal-01405042>

Partager

Métriques

Consultations de
la notice

152

Téléchargements du document

25