Deadlines

14 September 2018
Papers: Title, abstract, authors, subcommittee choice, and all other metadata

21 September 2018
Papers: Submission files

17 October 2018
Doctoral Consortium
Case Studies
Installations
Courses
Workshops/Symposia

7 January 2019
Late-Breaking Work
alt.chi
Panels & Fireside Chats
Demonstrations
Special Interest Groups (SIGs)
Video Showcase
Student Research Competition
Student Design Competition

CHI Anonymisation Policy

Submission

The CHI Papers review process will continue to use blind reviewing. As in previous years, we will use a relaxed model that does not attempt to conceal all traces of identity from the body of the paper. Authors are expected to remove author and institutional identities from the title and header areas of the paper, as noted in the submission instructions (Note: changing the text colour of the author information is not sufficient). Also, please make sure that identifying information does not appear in the document’s meta-data (e.g., the ‘Authors’ field in your word processor’s ‘Save As’ dialog box). In addition, we request that the acknowledgements section be left blank as it could also easily identify the authors and/or their institution.

Further suppression of identity in the body of the paper is left to the authors’ discretion. We do expect that authors leave citations to their previous work unanonymised, so that reviewers can ensure that all previous research has been taken into account by the authors. However, authors are encouraged to cite their own work in the third person, e.g., avoid “As described in our previous work [10], … ” and use instead “As described by [10], …”

In order to ensure the fairness of the reviewing process, CHI uses double-blind reviews, where external reviewers don’t know the identity of authors, and authors don’t know the identity of external reviewers. In the past few years, some authors have decided to publish their CHI submissions in public archives prior to or during the review process. These public archives have surpassed in reach and publicity what used to happen with tech reports published in institutional repositories. The consequence is that well-informed external reviewers may know, without searching for it, the full identity and institutional affiliation of the authors of a submission they are reviewing. While reviewers should not actively seek information about author identity, complete anonymisation is difficult, and can be made more so by publication and promotion of work during the CHI review process. While publication in public archives is becoming standard across many fields, authors should be aware that subconscious biases can affect the the nature of reviews when identities are known. CHI does not discourage non-archival publication of work prior to or during the review process, but recognises that complete anonymisation becomes more difficult in that context.

Scroll Up