· Mission · History · FAQ · Contact Us ·Newsletter · Interview Guide
Town Hall Survey Results
The CHI program: exclusive versus inclusive focus?
Apr 01, 2004
Total Responses: 23
Since 1983, CHI paper submissions have tripled. Acceptances have increased more slowly. The percentage of acceptances began at 35%, dropped to the 20%-25% range, and now has fallen to about 15%. Is this the right emphasis? Large umbrella conferences in some mature fields accept 50% or more, creating more parallel sessions. More people present, more work can be seen, but quality is more variable. Other CHI venues, such as industry overviews, are also highly selective with high rejection rates.
This Town Hall meeting addresses the topic of the overall inclusive/exclusive nature of the conference. Which choice best expresses how you feel about it?
No. of respondents
CHI has the right level of selectivity
CHI should be a little more inclusive (somewhat more parallel sessions, less stringent reviewing)
CHI should be much more inclusive (many more parallel sessions, much less stringent reviewing)
Some respondents did not make any selections, therefore the responses sum to less than totals.
Please share any additional thoughts and comments on this topic.
I'd like to see more of what's happening, even if the quality varies.
I would also like to see CHI address everyday computing more. There are major, unaddressed HCI issues people struggle with every day. But the "systems of interest" at CHI tend to be rather esoteric. I know that may be where the research money is, but do we have NO social responsibility?
I feel it should be easier for practitioners to share their experiences without being held to the same academic rigor as those who are focused extensively in research. Just hearing about what individuals who are in the day-to-day trenches in industry would be very valuable.
CHI should encourage and accept practical papers by practionners - not just the academic ones that it currently accepts. We keep wondering why there are not more practionners at CHI, but look at the paper tracks! Plus, we turn away people who have written up good papers and they go elsewhere - why come to a conference where you can't get a paper in? Most companies won't pay unless you DO have a paper in a conference - so it makes the cost even higher for practionners if they have to pay out of their own funds (that's not so likely to be true for academics) So by accepting more papers, we could reverse the decline of attendance AND provide a richer, livelier interaction among ALL in our community - not just the academic sector.
While I enjoy the conferences I have attended...I don't think that there is enough. I have talked and read some papers, panels, presentations, that didn't make it and I thought they were relivant and useful. So I say let more in.
From my experience of reviewing chi papers in the past 10 years, the average quality of submitted papers seems lowering. In order to keep the quality of accepted papers high, I think the current criteria for selection is about right.
There are already too many parallel sessions. However, the quality of reviewing should be improved. This year was a flop of all standards.
double the number of papers accepted (30%)
It is good that a CHI conference paper means something; I would not want to switch to a situation where my CHI publications no longer count towards tenure because it is so unselective. But CHI right now is so selective that many excellent papers (particularly more controversial ones) are not accepted. We should definitely move to a 20-25% range (i.e. accept all truly good papers, depending on how many of those are sent in).
Thanks to all those who participated in the survey. Please stay tuned for announcements regarding upcoming surveys.
The place for CHI community
This site is maintained by the GroupLens Research Project.
This web site was made with PostNuke, a web portal system written in PHP.
PostNuke is Free Software released under the GNU/GPL license.