Human Computer Interaction: CPSC 544
UBC Computer Science - Fall 2009

Due: at the beginning of class in which we discuss the paper you have reviewed

Description and Objectives:

This assignment is an individual exercise where you will write a formal conference paper review. The objectives of this assignment are for you to:

• familiarize yourself with the peer review process
• gain experience in writing a formal conference paper review

What you have to do:

• pick any one conference or journal paper that is an assigned class reading within Topic I, II, or III that has yet to be discussed in class (it does not have to be a CHI paper)
• you do not have to tell me which paper you have chosen in advance of doing the review
• write the review according to the CHI 2003 review format
• your review cannot exceed 3 typewritten pages, 12 point font (often 1 to 2 pages is sufficient for a thorough review)
• for the paper you select for Assignment #2, you do not have to submit an Assignment #0, and it cannot be the same paper that forms the basis of your Assignment #1 (You will not submit more than one assignment for any one reading.)

Helpful links:

The process for reviewing a CHI paper has shifted somewhat in the last few years. Hence, materials for 2006 and 2010 are both provided here.

CHI 2010 Call For Participation http://www.chi2010.org/authors/cfp-papers.html
CHI 2006 Call For Participation: http://www.chi2006.org/call/papers.php

This provides a detailed description on how to write a good CHI paper --  instructions are directed to authors:
CHI 2010 Guide to Successful HCI Archive Submission: http://www.chi2010.org/authors/archive-guide.html

These instructionsare directed to paper reviewers.
CHI 2010 Guide to Reviewing CHI Papers and Notes http://www.chi2010.org/authors/archive-guide.html
CHI 2006 Reviewing Guide and Examples: http://www.chi2006.org/call/chireviewing.php

Samples:

Here are the full set of reviews from two papers I have submitted to CHI (to CHI 2008 and CHI 2009). Both sets represent quality reviewing. The first paper was rejected (later reworked and accepted to a journal) and the second paper was accepted and awarded a CHI Best Paper.

Note that apart from clearly separating out contribution, none of these reviews are structured explicitly to address significance, validity, and originality of the work. These issues are addressed imiplicitly in the reviews. In my experience, it is easiest for a novice reviewer to explicity address each of these issues by structuring their review around them.

Note also that the reviewing scale changed between CHI 2008 and CHI 2009, so the numeric ratings are not consistent across the two sets of reviews.

Paper #1: reviews + eventual publication in ACM TACCESS

Paper #2: reviews + publication ACM CHI 2009