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
APA
Vancouver
Author
Bibtex
}
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