What Did Authors Value in the CHI'16 Reviews They Received? - Inria - Institut national de recherche en sciences et technologies du numérique Access content directly
Documents Associated With Scientific Events Year : 2016

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.
Fichier principal
Vignette du fichier
reviews - author version.pdf (366.79 Ko) Télécharger le fichier
Origin Files produced by the author(s)
Loading...

Dates and versions

hal-01405042 , version 1 (29-11-2016)

Licence

Identifiers

Cite

Yvonne Jansen, Kasper Hornbæk, 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⟩
179 View
433 Download

Altmetric

Share

Gmail Mastodon Facebook X LinkedIn More