Members of the Program Committee (PC) will assist Senior Program Committee members (SPC) by writing a double-blind review for the paper, and participating actively in the discussion phase.
Every paper will be assigned an SPC member and 3 PC members. The role of the PC is to provide critical assessments of the papers assigned to them based on the CHIIR review criteria (see below). For each assigned paper, the PC’s reviews will form the basis for a discussion about the paper, which will be initiated and guided by the SPC member.
The SPC will lead the discussion and, if necessary, provide an additional review to the paper. Based on the discussion, the SPC will arrive at a recommended decision. This recommended decision will be passed on to the Program Chairs and used as input to the Program Committee Meeting. SPC members will be invited to participate remotely in this meeting to discuss papers that are “on the bubble” or have divergent reviews.
The review criteria will focus on the following questions for every submission:
- Relevance: the relevance of the paper to CHIIR
- Originality: how original is the work described in the paper. Please be aware of the differences between demonstration and resource papers, and the general research papers (full, perspective, short).
- Technical/methodological soundness: quality of the technical and/or methodological content of the paper.
- Quality of presentation: the readability and understandability of the paper (please ignore minor inconsistencies in the layout between the Word and the LaTeX templates)
- Impact of contributions: whether the paper contains impactful contributions to the CHIIR community. For demonstration and resource papers, it would be the potential impact if the resource is released to the community.
- Adequacy of citations: how the paper discusses and compares with related work. Note that there is no page limit on the references. However, authors are urged to provide complete supporting literature for the full and perspective papers, and focus more on the highly relevant work for the short papers and demonstrations and resources papers.
- Reproducibility of methods: whether researchers can reproduce the methods and results described in the paper. For perspective papers, this refers to the ability to reproduce the perspective taken from the literature/prior work and arguments made.
- Overall recommendation
- Reviewer’s confidence
- Nominated for Best Paper: whether this paper should be nominated as a best paper candidate (for its submission category).
These review guidelines are made public in the interest of transparency. More detailed instructions will be provided to members of the SPC and PC to help them in providing constructive reviews. (These guidelines were drafted based on previous SIGIR and CHIIR conferences’ paper review guidelines. Many thanks to the previous and current PC Chairs for their contributions.)