Skip to Main content Skip to Navigation
New interface
Documents associated with scientific events

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

Yvonne Jansen 1 Kasper Hornbaek 1 Pierre Dragicevic 2 
2 AVIZ - Analysis and Visualization
LRI - Laboratoire de Recherche en Informatique, Inria Saclay - Ile de France
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.
Document type :
Documents associated with scientific events
Complete list of metadata

Cited literature [8 references]  Display  Hide  Download
Contributor : Pierre Dragicevic Connect in order to contact the contributor
Submitted on : Tuesday, November 29, 2016 - 4:41:05 PM
Last modification on : Tuesday, October 25, 2022 - 4:19:30 PM


reviews - author version.pdf
Files produced by the author(s)



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⟩



Record views


Files downloads