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This year, CHI PLAY received 178 complete submissions to the full papers track; however, 1 was withdrawn after submission.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.
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Out of the 178 submitted papers, one was withdrawn, 15 were desk rejected, and 7 were quick-rejected without entering the full reviewing process.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 accept and revise and resubmit, revise and resubmit, between revise and resubmit and reject, reject). Papers that were in the middle three categories were then discussed in two synchronous virtual program committee meetings that took place over two consecutive days. The inclusion of the PC meeting at this stage was a new addition to the review process this year. We included it to better calibrate decision making across the committee at this critical point in the review process, ensure consistency in outcomes, promote reflection and consideration at this stage in the process, and mentor newer ACs in the review process.
- Accept with Minor Revisions (17 papers): 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, analyses, perspectives in the discussion, or acknowledgement of limitations of the work. The final version of the paper must be submitted by revisions deadline for verification by the corresponding associate chair.
- Revise and Resubmit (52 papers): 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 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 does not fundamentally change the paper and require important new findings to be made.
- Reject (86 papers): The submission has profound weaknesses in one or more areas, and should not be included in the conference this year.
For papers that are accepted with minor revisions, the second round of reviews will be a “light-touch” process in which the 1AC and 2AC check the revisions, whereas papers that received Revise and Resubmit will receive another round of external reviews with the same reviewers in most cases, 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; it is likely that many of the revised papers will ultimately be rejected.
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.
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 (firstname.lastname@example.org) with any feedback.
Regan Mandryk, Guo Freeman, and Scott Bateman
|From September 11th, 2023||Regular Registration|