--- name: brycewang-stanford/chi-review-process source: https://app.decimal.ai/s/brycewang-stanford-chi-review-process@1/SKILL.md source_sha256: 508ff3764713 --- # CHI Review Process CHI's Papers track runs a two-round, committee-anchored process that resembles a journal's revise-and-resubmit more than an ML conference's rebuttal. Mechanics below follow the CHI 2027 and CHI 2026 Papers Review Process pages and the CHI 2026 outcome reports (read 2026-07-08 via search renderings; the conference sites block direct automated fetching). ## Who touches your paper - **1AC** — the Associate Chair who manages your submission: screens it, recruits two external reviewers, writes the meta-review, and represents the paper at the PC meeting. The 1AC is your most important reader at CHI. - **2AC** — a second committee member who writes a full review like the externals. - **Two external reviewers** — recruited by the 1AC for topical expertise. - **Subcommittee chairs (SCs)** — run the subcommittee you designated, arbitrate desk rejects with the ACs, and chair the discussions. - **Papers Chairs / PC** — own the overall process and the final accept list. ## Two kinds of early rejection CHI screens before full review, and since the 2026 cycle this screening has teeth: 1. **Desk reject (DR):** format and compliance — wrong template, anonymization failure, unjustified length (the >12,000-word rule), policy violations. 2. **Assisted desk reject (ADR):** a rubric-based judgment call made jointly by SCs and ACs, introduced for CHI 2026 and codified by the CHI Steering Committee. The four posted rubric grounds: | Rubric code | Meaning | |---|---| | ADR-Context | Grossly insufficient literature review to contextualize the contribution | | ADR-Contribution | Disproportionately small HCI contribution for the paper's length | | ADR-Data | Grossly insufficient data to support the claims | | ADR-Method | Grossly insufficient methodological detail, conceptual clarity, or research transparency | At CHI 2026, subcommittees desk-rejected between 1.4% and 17.9% of their submissions and assisted-desk-rejected between 1.1% and 16.6%, with **ADR-Context the most common rubric ground** — weak related work is now a pre-review rejection risk, not just a score penalty (`chi-related-work`). ## Round 1: the recommendation scale Reviewers and ACs recommend on a five-point scale: - **A** — Accept - **ARR** — Accept with Required Revisions - **RR** — Revise and Resubmit - **RRX** — Revise and Resubmit / Reject (leaning reject) - **X** — Reject **No paper is accepted in round 1.** The posted threshold: a paper earning at least one recommendation of RR or better (A, ARR, or RR — not RRX or X) *from the 1AC or the 2AC* is invited to revise and resubmit. External reviewers' scores inform but do not trigger the invitation; the AC pair holds the keys. ## Round 2: revision, then the PC meeting Invited authors get about five weeks to submit a tracked-changes revision plus a response to the reviews (mechanics in `chi-author-response`). The same review team re-reads, and the PC meeting settles accepts and rejects. The process page warns that as many as 50% of revised papers may still be rejected; the realized CHI 2026 numbers: ```text CHI 2026 Papers funnel (posted outcome reports, chi2026.acm.org): 6,730 completed submissions → 2,603 invited to revise and resubmit (38.7% of submissions survived round 1) → 2,576 actually resubmitted (27 withdrawn/lapsed) → 1,705 conditionally accepted (65.5% of resubmissions; 25.3% overall) ``` Read your round-1 packet against this funnel: an RR invitation means you are in the top ~39%, with roughly two-in-three odds that depend heavily on revision quality. ## Reading the reviews you receive - Weigh the **1AC meta-review** above everything; it frames the PC-meeting discussion and tells you which criticisms the committee actually owns. - An **RRX from an external** with **RR from the ACs** is survivable; the inverse pattern (ACs at RRX/X) means the invitation, if it comes at all, is fragile. - Contradictory externals are common at CHI because subcommittees mix methodological cultures; resolve contradictions by aligning with the meta-review, and flag the contradiction politely in the response rather than picking a side silently. - "The contribution is unclear" from multiple reviewers is a framing defect you can fix in five weeks; "the study cannot support these claims" usually is not — decide early whether to revise seriously or withdraw and redo the work for next cycle. ## Confidentiality and conduct Submissions are confidential to the review team; contacting reviewers or ACs about a paper outside PCS channels violates the process. Reviewer anonymity is permanent. Public complaints during the cycle can only hurt — escalation happens through the subcommittee chairs and Papers Chairs, in writing, via PCS or the posted contacts. ## Output format ```text [Stage] screening / round-1 / RnR window / round-2 / decided [Screening exposure] DR: · ADR: [Round-1 read] 1AC: 2AC: ext: → invitation likely? yes/no [Meta-review center of gravity] [Realistic odds] [Action] ```