The Guide to Reviewing provides detailed guidance for reviewers on contribution types, review language as well as quality, use of AI tools, and prior publications.
The CHI conference would not be possible without reviewers. In 2023, over 3,400 external reviewers contributed over 5,900 reviews to shape the papers programme. The programme committee of just over 480 Associate Chairs contributed a further 6,200 reviews and meta reviews. The non-profit publishing of our work in the ACM Digital Library would not be possible without the immense contribution from the community.
We do ask that, for each paper submitted, the collective authors of that paper volunteer to provide at least three reviews. This year, the Paper Chairs are encouraging authors to submit shorter papers. It is their hope that the average CHI paper will be a bit shorter (and, thus, less work for reviewers) and that Associate Chairs and reviewers can make informed decisions about their personal workloads with regards to reviewing.
Volunteer to Review
You can maximize your chances of being matched for a review by keeping your PCS profile up to date and uploading sample papers from your publications or papers that represent your expertise (in PCS under the “Reviews” tab by clicking “Provide sample publications”). Upload at least 8 papers to ensure a good match. You will see the list of open reviewing venues under the review tab by clicking “Volunteer to review.” Select “CHI 2024” and enter how many reviews you are volunteering.
How Reviewers are Selected
Associate Chairs match papers and reviewers with the intent that experts review each paper. This matching is made possible through a combination of what the Associate Chair knows about the reviewer – from their sample publication match (which pushes highly matched reviewers to the top of the list in PCS), and/or from their research profile on the web – and what they know about the paper.
Associate Chairs look at the number of reviews volunteered as entered in PCS, so if you do not volunteer to review using the instructions above it greatly reduces the likelihood of being selected to review.
Bias in Peer Review
As a reviewer you play a pivotal role in the peer review process. We can manage bias through creating an environment that limits it, and by recognising the fact that it exists and can affect the quality of our decisions. CHI is an incredibly diverse community and together we need to create a review process where all perspectives are represented and fairly reviewed.
There are several approaches to managing bias in decision-making, the most important of which is awareness that your decisions are vulnerable to bias. We recommend you take the following steps:
1. Consciously reflect. Do not assume that your decisions will be objective. Reflect on the vulnerability to bias that all humans have. Take time to make decisions, do not feel under pressure to make quick assessments. Focus on fairness.
2. Be consistent. Following objective decision-making processes reduces the impact of bias. Ensure you have a clear understanding of the process, competencies and scoring process. Take notes and do not rely on memory or past experiences, base decisions on evidence. Confirm that a sound rationale is provided for all decisions made. Decisions should be justifiable.
3. Challenge yourself and be receptive to being challenged. It can be easier to spot bias in others than in yourself. ACs have the responsibility to speak up if they suspect that bias might be present and are encouraged to challenge a reviewer respectfully, if needed.
4. You are more susceptible to bias if you are rushed or fatigued. Ensure you plan your time so that you are at your best when writing your reviews.
* This section is a modified version of UKRI’s Guidance for Mitigating Bias in Peer Review.
