What did authors value in the CHI'16 reviews they received?

Research output: Chapter in Book/Report/Conference proceeding › Article in proceedings › Research › peer-review

Standard

What did authors value in the CHI'16 reviews they received? / Jansen, Yvonne; Hornbæk, Kasper; Dragicevic, Pierre.

Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference - extended abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems. Association for Computing Machinery, 2016. p. 596-606.

Research output: Chapter in Book/Report/Conference proceeding › Article in proceedings › Research › peer-review

Harvard

Jansen, Y, Hornbæk, K & Dragicevic, P 2016, What did authors value in the CHI'16 reviews they received? in Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference - extended abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems. Association for Computing Machinery, pp. 596-606, 34th Annual CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, San Jose, United States, 07/05/2016. https://doi.org/10.1145/2851581.2892576

APA

Jansen, Y., Hornbæk, K., & Dragicevic, P. (2016). What did authors value in the CHI'16 reviews they received? In Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference - extended abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 596-606). Association for Computing Machinery. https://doi.org/10.1145/2851581.2892576

Vancouver

Jansen Y, Hornbæk K, Dragicevic P. What did authors value in the CHI'16 reviews they received? In Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference - extended abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems. Association for Computing Machinery. 2016. p. 596-606 https://doi.org/10.1145/2851581.2892576

Author

Jansen, Yvonne ; Hornbæk, Kasper ; Dragicevic, Pierre. / What did authors value in the CHI'16 reviews they received?. Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference - extended abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems. Association for Computing Machinery, 2016. pp. 596-606

Bibtex

@inproceedings{54332c0e542a4b91af549fddd7aa8bba,
title = "What did authors value in the CHI'16 reviews they received?",
abstract = "Peer-review is key to assessing work in HCI conferences. The content and process of peer-review, and how it moves scholarship forward or impedes it, are much discussed but little data is available. We provide initial data from surveying 46 authors who submitted papers and notes to CHI 2016, and asking them what they found helpful and unhelpful in their reviews. Responses were overall positive, and showed that authors appreciated encouragement, ideas for related work, and seeing their work fairly assessed. At the same time, some authors commented that reviews may not be inclusive of new approaches, may contain insufficient details, and occasionally seem unreasonable. They also noted issues specific to the rebuttal process. We discuss how instructions for reviewers could be improved, and link our findings to ongoing debates on peer review.",
keywords = "CHI, Peer review, Surveys, User studies",
author = "Yvonne Jansen and Kasper Hornb{\ae}k and Pierre Dragicevic",
year = "2016",
doi = "10.1145/2851581.2892576",
language = "English",
pages = "596--606",
booktitle = "Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference - extended abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems",
publisher = "Association for Computing Machinery",
note = "34th Annual CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, CHI 2016 ; Conference date: 07-05-2016 Through 12-05-2016",

}

RIS

TY - GEN

T1 - What did authors value in the CHI'16 reviews they received?

AU - Jansen, Yvonne

AU - Hornbæk, Kasper

AU - Dragicevic, Pierre

N1 - Conference code: 34

PY - 2016

Y1 - 2016

N2 - Peer-review is key to assessing work in HCI conferences. The content and process of peer-review, and how it moves scholarship forward or impedes it, are much discussed but little data is available. We provide initial data from surveying 46 authors who submitted papers and notes to CHI 2016, and asking them what they found helpful and unhelpful in their reviews. Responses were overall positive, and showed that authors appreciated encouragement, ideas for related work, and seeing their work fairly assessed. At the same time, some authors commented that reviews may not be inclusive of new approaches, may contain insufficient details, and occasionally seem unreasonable. They also noted issues specific to the rebuttal process. We discuss how instructions for reviewers could be improved, and link our findings to ongoing debates on peer review.

AB - Peer-review is key to assessing work in HCI conferences. The content and process of peer-review, and how it moves scholarship forward or impedes it, are much discussed but little data is available. We provide initial data from surveying 46 authors who submitted papers and notes to CHI 2016, and asking them what they found helpful and unhelpful in their reviews. Responses were overall positive, and showed that authors appreciated encouragement, ideas for related work, and seeing their work fairly assessed. At the same time, some authors commented that reviews may not be inclusive of new approaches, may contain insufficient details, and occasionally seem unreasonable. They also noted issues specific to the rebuttal process. We discuss how instructions for reviewers could be improved, and link our findings to ongoing debates on peer review.

KW - CHI

KW - Peer review

KW - Surveys

KW - User studies

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85014633450&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1145/2851581.2892576

DO - 10.1145/2851581.2892576

M3 - Article in proceedings

AN - SCOPUS:85014633450

SP - 596

EP - 606

BT - Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference - extended abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems

PB - Association for Computing Machinery

T2 - 34th Annual CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems

Y2 - 7 May 2016 through 12 May 2016

ER -

ID: 176374738