This information is for reviewers, authors, and other participants at GenAICHI.

CHI Workshops have a very short review timeframe with around 2 weeks from the common submission deadline to the announcement of decisions. There is about a 7-day span available to read papers and write reviews.

A few notes

  • Papers for GenAICHI are 4 pages in single-column ACM format with additional pages available for references.
  • Papers may or may not be anonymous - we are only expecting single-blind reviewing (reviewer is anonymous from authors)
  • Each paper must have two reviews before we make an acceptance decision
  • Some papers may receive meta-reviews that summarise reviews or provide further information
  • Expected Topics and Themes can be found on the main workshop page.
  • As the papers are short, we expect reviews to also be quite short and the form is limited to 2500 characters (~380 words). It should not take long to write a review for each workshop paper.

Review Instructions

Reviewing is a form of Caring, so please be kind. If there are strengths in the submission, please describe them. If there are problems in the submission, please write constructive and respectful comments of the kind that you would want your students to receive.

Our comments should be oriented toward helping the authors to improve their work - whether we plan to accept it for our workshop, or if we plan to tell them how to prepare a new version for a different venue.

You have form fields for a 1-sentence summary of the submission, strengths, and areas for improvement. The form fields all have character limits to keep reviews short.

Reviews comments should focus on:

  • How the submission is aligned with the workshop Topics and Themes
  • Whether the submission is complete, in the correct format, and reasonably comprehensible.
  • The potential of the submission to initiate interesting discussion at the workshop.
  • Whether the submission has flaws or misunderstandings indicating that it not ready for discussion at a workshop.

Reviews that address these questions clearly and succinctly will be most useful in making acceptance decisions within the very short timeframes for CHI workshop reviewing.

Accept / Reject Decisions

Just to be clear:

  • Definitely/Probably Accept means: the submission is aligned with the workshop Topics and Themes, and it is complete, in the correct format and comprehensible, and it has good potential of the submission to initiate interesting discussion at the workshop.

  • Not sure / Neutral means: the submission meets most of the above criteria but not strongly.

  • Definitely/Probably Reject means: the submission is not aligned with the workshop Topics and Themes, or it is not complete, not in the correct format or incomprehensible, or it does not have much potential for interesting discussion, or is it not ready for workshop discussion in some way not listed above.

Meta-Review Instructions

Meta-reviews are not guaranteed for all papers. Where a meta-review is included it will:

  • summarise the reviews
  • add any further information that is necessary for making an acceptance decision
  • provide reasoning for an acceptance decision both in terms of the reviews and extra information provided by the meta-reviewer

New to reviewing?

If you’re new to reviewing here are some useful resources. These are useful for experienced reviewers as well!