CHI PLAY 2022 Full Papers: Results After Round 1

This year, CHI PLAY received 136 complete submissions to the full papers track. Out of these papers, one was withdrawn, one was desk rejected, and 10 were quick-rejected without entering the full reviewing process.

In terms of primary contribution, we received the following number of self-identified submission types.

Pie chart showing the number of submissions for each of the self-identified submission types. Clock-wise: Twenty-four submissions were identified as Artififact-Design, eleven as Artifiact-Technical, thirty as Mixed-Methods, twenty-five as Qualitative, nineteen as quantitative, five as Meta-Research, four as Methodological, six as Theoretical
Submissions by self-identified submission type

Artifact-Design: 24

Artifact-Technical: 11

Empirical-Mixed Methods: 30

Empirical-Qualitative: 25

Empirical-Quantitative: 19

Meta-Research: 5

Methodological: 4 

Theoretical: 6

We received no author requests for alternative contribution types.

For the remaining 124 papers that went into full review, the current outcome under the Revise & Resubmit process allowing some authors to revise and resubmit their papers is as follows.

Stacked bar chart illustrating the outcome of the revise and resubmit process of the one hundred and twenty-four submissions that went into full review. From left to right: twenty-eight papers received Accept with Minor Revisions, thirty papers will be offered to revise and resubmit, fifty-eight papers were rejected
Outcomes of the Revise & Resubmit process

Sixty-six papers were rejected after the first round of reviews, meaning they will not be considered for inclusion in CHI PLAY 2022. Out of the remaining 58 papers, 28 papers received Accept with Minor Revisions. 30 papers will be offered the opportunity to Revise and Resubmit, and will—just like all other papers still in the process—only be accepted to CHI PLAY 2022 if all changes that were summarized by the ACs are made in a satisfactory way. 

For papers that are accepted with minor revisions, the second round of reviews will be a “light-touch” process, while papers that received Revise and Resubmit will receive another round of reviews, and will also be subject to a final selection process. This makes this process fundamentally different from, for example, a major revision of a journal article. This is treated as a real resubmission, which means that it is given full consideration but no guarantee or preferential treatment towards acceptance.

Given how many papers have received a Revise & Resubmit decision, we would like to be transparent about the implications of these revisions here: The move to a journal-based publication model allows for more flexibility for revising submissions,but we are still constrained by how many papers can fit into the schedule of the hybrid conference program this year. Therefore, many papers that will undergo revisions now will not be included in the conference after the second round of reviews and selections. We anticipate that around 40% of revised submissions will be accepted into the final program after this second stage. It is still highly competitive.

Considering the second round of selection for Revise and Resubmit will be competitive, we have asked committee members to give clear indications where borderline decisions were made, in the hope that authors will be able to decide whether they wish to pursue the second round of reviews, or to remove their submission from consideration, so that their work can be submitted to another venue, which might allow more time for changes to be made.

We hope that the first round reviews will provide authors with constructive feedback on how to improve their submissions. We would also like to take this opportunity to thank all committee members for volunteering their time, as well as all reviewers who contributed their expertise at a time where many of us are still experiencing higher-than-normal workloads.

We are happy to accept feedback on the review process from authors, reviewers, or committee members so that we can improve or clarify the process in the future. Please feel free to email the paper chairs ( with any feedback. 

Guo Freeman, Scott Bateman, and Lennart Nacke

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Scroll to top