2017 Review Guidelines

Part of what makes InfoSocial valuable and distinct is the quality of and approach to reviews. We aim to help fellow grad students out, primarily. This is a time to be helpful in giving feedback that will make these papers better, not just talk about where they are right now.
  • Due Date: All reviews are due by 6 p.m. CST on Wednesday, February 15
  • Review Length: You don’t need to write a novel, but every submission needs substantive feedback. Think ICA-length reviews, but with CHI or CSCW-level helpfulness/quality.
  • Questions: Ask your assigned associate chair or either of the program co-chairs.

Review Criteria

The guidelines below serve as general guidance for what dimensions papers should be evaluated on, as well as what would be useful information for both the program committee and the people who submitted.
  1. Argument: Does it make sense? Is there a basis of a good idea in the abstract? Is the argument sound? Is an interesting problem clearly defined?
  2. Method: Is the method or proposed method appropriate for addressing the argument? Is it realistic?
  3. Literature Review: Does the paper make sense given the overall flow of the literature? (This doesn’t mean that it has to be newest under the sun, but it does need to have some kind of logical consistency with literature that has come before or a really good explanation why not.)
  4. Literature Engagement: Do they have appropriate citations, and do they engage the references past a name drop (is there synthesis)? Are there papers that you know about that might be useful to them as they continue to develop this idea?
  5. Editorial Standards: Does the paper need a line edit? Does it respect the guidelines of the submission’s chosen style? We aren’t going to not let papers in because of grammar or spelling issues, but it needs to be within a reasonable expectation of stylistic cleanup by the time we send the papers to discussants.
  6. Novelty (Bonus): Is the submission novel or creative in some way, including methods, approach, argument, or contribution?