CHI Review Reminder

Personal.CHIReviewReminder History

Show minor edits - Show changes to markup

Added lines 1-2:

Subject: Reminder: CHI Reviews due Oct 29

Added line 2:
Added line 20:
Changed lines 9-12 from:

1. Your primary criteria for judging a paper is: Does this submission provide a strong contribution to the field of HCI?

2. Authors indicate a contribution type. As part of judging whether the paper makes a strong contribution, consider the additional review questions of each contribution type as specified in the review form. What is important about these questions is that they may push you to think about the contribution in ways that differ from what you may perceive as the CHI ‘formula’ paper. However, these questions are not a checklist. The submission(s) you are handling may not cleanly fall within a single contribution type, and the paper should not be penalized for that. When this happens, your primary criteria for judging a paper should still be point 1 above: Does this submission provide a strong contribution to the field of HCI?

to:
  1. Your primary criteria for judging a paper is: Does this submission provide a strong contribution to the field of HCI?
  2. Authors indicate a contribution type. As part of judging whether the paper makes a strong contribution, consider the additional review questions of each contribution type as specified in the review form. What is important about these questions is that they may push you to think about the contribution in ways that differ from what you may perceive as the CHI ‘formula’ paper. However, these questions are not a checklist. The submission(s) you are handling may not cleanly fall within a single contribution type, and the paper should not be penalized for that. When this happens, your primary criteria for judging a paper should still be point 1 above: Does this submission provide a strong contribution to the field of HCI?
Changed lines 14-17 from:

3. Authors submit their papers to subcommittees. However, you should not judge a paper by how well it fits the subcommittee theme.

4. Reviewers rate the paper using a 9-point ranking scale; your written appraisal must support your numeric ranking.

to:
  1. Authors submit their papers to subcommittees. However, you should not judge a paper by how well it fits the subcommittee theme.
  2. Reviewers rate the paper using a 9-point ranking scale; your written appraisal must support your numeric ranking.
Added lines 1-20:

Dear CHI Reviewer Just a quick reminder that your CHI reviews are due on October 29th – that is not too long from now! If you have done your reviews, thanks! If you haven’t begun or aren't finished, please start now. Authors have put considerable time into writing their papers, and they deserve a considered (rather than a rushed) review of their work.

Please keep to this deadline. The associate chairs of your papers need your review to pass judgment, and the authors will have an opportunity to write a rebuttal a few days after this deadline. Missing reviews will be extremely problematic, and add considerably to other's workload if they have to scramble for a last minute reviewer.

A quick reminder about changes to the review process this year (see http://www.chi2009.org/Authors/Guides/ArchiveWhatsChanged.html for details).

Most important: 1. Your primary criteria for judging a paper is: Does this submission provide a strong contribution to the field of HCI?

2. Authors indicate a contribution type. As part of judging whether the paper makes a strong contribution, consider the additional review questions of each contribution type as specified in the review form. What is important about these questions is that they may push you to think about the contribution in ways that differ from what you may perceive as the CHI ‘formula’ paper. However, these questions are not a checklist. The submission(s) you are handling may not cleanly fall within a single contribution type, and the paper should not be penalized for that. When this happens, your primary criteria for judging a paper should still be point 1 above: Does this submission provide a strong contribution to the field of HCI?

And a few other things:

3. Authors submit their papers to subcommittees. However, you should not judge a paper by how well it fits the subcommittee theme.

4. Reviewers rate the paper using a 9-point ranking scale; your written appraisal must support your numeric ranking.

Thanks again for reviewing! Saul Greenberg and Scott Hudson