CHI PLAY 2022 will be the second year after a transition to the PACM publishing model. Based on last year’s experience with CHI PLAY 2021 review process, we have made some changes to how the final decisions will be made on papers to the Technical Program. The goal of these changes is to facilitate a more efficient review process and reduce the workload for both authors and Associate Chairs/reviewers.
TLDR;
- There will be 3 outcomes for papers: “Accept with Minor Revisions”, “Revise and Resubmit” and “Reject”.
- We will aim to only have a small number of papers to be classified as “Revise and Resubmit,” meaning most papers will be recommended as either “Accept with Minor Revisions” or “Reject” in the first round. We will allow a bigger number of papers than we can accept to the conference to go into R&R. Therefore, there will be another round of final selections at the end of the second cycle.
First, we now have just three recommendations – “Accept with Minor Revisions”, “Revise and Resubmit”, and “Reject”, instead of the four recommendations we used in CHI PLAY 2021: . The decision was made to combine the “Accept” and “Accept with Minor Revisions” categories that we used in 2021, because in practice every paper will be revised to some extent.
Second, and more importantly, is what the goal is for paper decisions. We will aim to limit the number of papers that will be considered for “Revise and Resubmit”. This goal has been identified for several reasons. The idea is to allow authors to get the most likely outcome for their paper back after the first round of reviews. If the “Revise and Resubmit” is left open for papers that will only be good enough after substantial revisions (e.g., if a large amount of work and/or results are needed), then many papers in this category could still be rejected after the second round review. Therefore, this category is only for papers that require realistic revisions that warrant another review cycle, but that will likely succeed if the recommended changes are sufficiently made within the revision cycle. This will ensure that the workload for both authors and reviewers is limited to papers that are likely to be accepted. However, please note that this does NOT mean that all papers that are considered for “Revise and Resubmit” will be accepted after the revision cycle. “Revise and Resubmit” papers will still be rejected if the revisions do not sufficiently address reviewers’ concerns, or introduce new issues.
To support the clear identification of papers for the “Revise and Resubmit” category, we have attempted to concisely but comprehensively describe the types of required revisions that are appropriate for this category, which will be visible to both Reviewers and Associate Chairs. Associate Chairs who find that these descriptions are insufficient for making a decision will be instructed to consult with the Paper Chairs, so that an appropriate final decision can be determined.
Below are the new review decisions and the descriptions as they will appear to reviewers:
Accept with Minor Revisions: Submissions that receive this decision are ready or nearly ready for publication, though they may require a few small changes. The paper is likely to be accepted with minor revisions such as the integration and contextualization of new references, additional information on aspects such as system implementation, clarification of analyses, consideration of new perspectives in the discussion, or acknowledgement of limitations of the work. The final version of the paper must be submitted by revisions deadline (i.e., six weeks) for verification by the corresponding associate chair.
Revise and Resubmit: Submissions that receive this decision have real potential, but will require major portions rewritten or redone, and then re-reviewed. The paper may be accepted pending major revisions such as clarifying the motivation, including new areas of literature, recontextualizing discussion of the work, including new analyses, extension of designs, development of new system components, or adjustment of algorithms. This recommendation should only be chosen if the work to be completed can be conducted within the six week time frame and does not fundamentally change the paper and require important new findings to be made.
Reject: The submission has weaknesses in one or more areas, and should not be included in the conference this year.
We hope these changes will provide a positive change to the review process. This approach does have the tradeoff that it may limit the ability to support and guide promising work that is not quite ready for earlier publication. However, we believe, for the reasons outlined above, that this is the best way to move forward this year, as our community continues to grow and many members in our community are currently coping with various challenges due to the ongoing COVID-19 global pandemic.
We welcome any feedback, questions, or clarifications on these changes. If you have any, please feel free to reach out to the CHI PLAY 2022 Paper Chairs at papers@chiplay.acm.org.
Good luck with your submissions!
CHI PLAY 2022 Paper Chairs
Scott Bateman
Guo Freeman
Lennart Nacke