Blog

Citing Games with Ludographies in CHI PLAY Papers Citing games, whether commercial or academic, has become common in the CHI PLAY community as they represent important scholarly resources for our work. Games are cited to support statements, exemplify abstract ideas, and acknowledge practice; they may also be a form of primary data, on which the research is built. While authors have taken a number of approaches to this, including adding URLs to game websites in brackets, using footnotes, or adding games to their list of references, these have not quite fit; in content, volume, and style. Phoebe O. Toups Dugas started the practice of a “Ludography” in some of her papers several years ago, drawing from the practice of the Game Studies journal. We would like to encourage authors to adopt the idea of a Ludography, a special list of game references that comes after the normal list of references in your paper. Submissions are not required to have a Ludography; however, if games are going to be referenced in your paper we would encourage you to help standardize through a Ludography. Regardless of whether or not a ludography is used, it is important to note details of which version […]

read more

Paper Review Process after First Round of Reviews This year, CHI PLAY received 178 complete submissions to the full papers track; however, 1 was withdrawn after submission.  In terms of primary contribution, we received the following number of self-identified submission types. We received no author requests for alternative contribution types. Review Process All papers were initially screened by the three paper chairs for completeness, violation of the anonymization policy, and scope within the CHI PLAY 2023 Call for Papers; papers that did not meet these criteria were discussed among the paper chairs and desk rejected; feedback was sent to the authors.  The paper chairs then assigned a primary associate chair (1AC) and a secondary associate chair (2AC) to each paper. The 1AC and 2AC read the submissions to determine whether they should be assigned reviewer or quickly rejected.  Out of the 178 submitted papers, one was withdrawn, 15 were desk rejected, and 7 were quick-rejected without entering the full reviewing process.  Papers were then assigned two external reviewers and the 2AC provided an additional external review. After reviews were completed and checked for quality, the 1AC initiated discussion amongst the reviewers and came up with a preliminary recommendation (accept, between […]

read more