Submitting a CHI 2027 paper means sharing responsibility for peer review

Authors: Anna Cox, Tony Tang, Thomas Kosch, Erin Solovey, Petra Isenberg, Regan Mandryk
Date: 2026-08-24

Peer review only works when peers review.

Every CHI paper depends on members of our community reading submissions carefully, providing constructive feedback, and helping the conference reach fair and well-reasoned decisions. As CHI has grown, however, this work has increasingly fallen on a relatively small group of volunteers. That is neither fair to those volunteers nor sustainable for the conference.

The CHI Steering Committee has decided that submitting authors will therefore share direct responsibility for providing the reviewing capacity that their submissions require. This change is part of a broader effort to create a review process that is fairer, more sustainable, and able to maintain high standards as the conference grows. This change is not unique to CHI and many other conferences are now adopting a similar practice to require authors to contribute to reviewing process 

This post explains what authors need to do, what they are committing to, and what happens when a commitment cannot be completed.

The rule in one paragraph

Each paper submission must fill four review-responsibility slots. Each slot represents a commitment by a qualified and named author to complete one full-paper review for CHI.

The four slots do not need to be assigned to four different people. One author can take more than one slot. For example, four authors could take one slot each; two authors could take two slots each; or one author could take all four.

Only authors of the submitted paper may be named. Authors cannot nominate a student, colleague, postdoc, or other person who is not an author of that paper. Naming a non-author will result in rejection of the submission.

If no qualified reviewer is part of the authorship team, an exemption can be granted (see below). Everyone is eligible to submit to CHI, regardless of whether they qualify to review for CHI. However, submitting authors who are eligible to review must do their fair share. 

What authors must decide before submitting

The allocation of the four slots is made when the paper is submitted.

Before pressing the submit button, every author team should agree:

1. Which author is responsible for each slot.
2. Whether each named author meets the minimum qualifications to review for CHI.
3. Whether each named author has the time and capacity to complete the reviews by the deadline.
4. Whether each named author’s PCS profile is complete and up to date.

These choices are commitments, not provisional preferences. After submission, an author cannot be added as a replacement, and responsibility for a slot cannot be transferred to another author. An additional review completed by someone else on the team does not compensate for a review that the originally named author failed to complete.

Authors who are serving as Associate Chairs, Subcommunity Chairs, or Paper Chairs can also be named in the submission’s declared slots if they want their Program Committee service to count towards the requirement.  

Who is qualified to take a slot?

An author named for a review-responsibility slot must meet the CHI minimum qualifications for reviewers. In plain language, reviewers will normally need:

• at least one full paper published at CHI or a specialised SIGCHI conference; and
• previous mentoring or training in how to write a review.

The qualifications policy also allows carefully considered exceptions when someone has relevant methodological or domain expertise, or appropriate experience at another leading HCI venue.

Author teams should consult the full Minimum Qualifications for Peer Review Roles policy before deciding who to name.

What counts as completing a slot?

A slot is fulfilled only when the author assigned to it:

• personally submits the review;
• submits it by the published deadline; and
• provides a review that meets the standards in the CHI Guide to Reviewing Papers.

OR the author

• uses one of their pre-qualified slots for serving as Paper Chairs, an Associated Chair, or a sub-community chair.

A late review does not fulfil the slot. A missing review does not fulfil the slot. A review that is submitted under the wrong author’s name does not fulfil the slot.

Authors may decline an individual invitation when the paper they are asked to review is outside their expertise or presents another legitimate difficulty. Declining an invitation is not itself a policy violation. It does not, however, remove the underlying responsibility. The author remains responsible for completing the number of reviews represented by their declared slots.

Authors will not be penalised for reviews they were never given an opportunity to complete. When CHI does not issue sufficient review invitations for an author to fulfil their declared slots, those slots are treated as fulfilled.

What does “an adequate review” mean?

The purpose of this requirement is not simply to produce a certain number of documents. CHI needs reviews that engage seriously and constructively with the submitted research.

Examples of reviews that may be judged insufficient include:

• a one-sentence or extremely brief review;
• a review that is largely unrelated to the submitted paper;
• a review that does not meaningfully engage with the work;
• a review containing invented references, false claims, or clear misrepresentations; or
• a review generated primarily by an automated system without meaningful human evaluation.

Reviewers should look at the CHI guide to reviewing papers, which offers useful advice on what an adequate, or even good, review looks like. A review is not inadequate simply because it is negative, because another reviewer disagrees with it, or because it contains a good-faith misunderstanding or minor error. A critical review supported by clear reasoning is entirely appropriate.

Associate Chairs and Subcommunity Chairs may flag a potentially insufficient review, but the final determination is made by the Paper Chairs.

What happens when a commitment is not fulfilled?

When one or more declared slots for a submission remain unfulfilled (i.e., if you do not add a sufficient number of author names at submission), that submission will be desk-rejected. It will not receive reviews, a meta-review, or other feedback. This consequence applies to the submission whose declared slots were not fulfilled. It does not automatically apply to every paper that the person has co-authored.

However, when an author accepts slots on several submissions (i.e., has volunteered to complete reviews) and does not complete enough reviews to fulfil all of those commitments, every submission with an unfulfilled slot is affected. Each of those submissions will be desk-rejected.

The Paper Chairs make final determinations about completion, review quality, exemptions, and compliance with the policy.

Exemptions

The policy is not intended to prevent newcomers from submitting to CHI or to require people to review work they are not qualified to assess.

No author is qualified to review

When no author on a submission meets the minimum reviewer qualifications, the submission is exempt from nominating reviewers.

This exemption must be declared when the paper is submitted.

Exceptional circumstances

An otherwise eligible author may qualify for an exemption because of specified conference leadership service or an exceptional circumstance that allows them to contribute to the paper but prevents them from reviewing. Examples in the policy include parental leave and a medical emergency. Being busy due to other work responsibilities is not an eligible exceptional circumstance – we are all busy. If you find yourself in this situation and fear being unable to provide a review you may wish to reconsider submitting to CHI this year.

When an unforeseen serious circumstance arises after submission, authors should contact the Paper Chairs before the review deadline. Requests made after the deadline will not be considered.

Preparing the people you name

Every declared reviewer should make sure their PCS information is complete before assignments begin. This includes:

• current contact details;
• areas of expertise;
• sample publications;
• reviewing experience;
• an ORCID;
• and their DBLP profile link.

Declared reviewers should also read the CHI Guide to Reviewing Papers before accepting assignments. A complete and accurate profile helps Associate Chairs identify suitable papers and reduces the likelihood of inappropriate invitations.

Some practical examples

We divided the slots between two co-authors. I completed my two reviews, but my colleague did not complete theirs. Will our paper be desk-rejected?

Yes.

All four slots belong to the submission. Each must be fulfilled by the author originally assigned to it. Your two completed reviews cannot substitute for your colleague’s missing reviews.

My co-author could not finish their review, so I completed an additional review instead. Does that save the paper?

No.

Reviews cannot be transferred or substituted after submission. The author named for each slot must personally fulfil that slot.

I was named for three slots but CHI did not send me any review invitations. Will our submission be rejected?

No.

Authors cannot be penalised for assignments they were not given. When insufficient invitations are issued, the affected slots are treated as fulfilled.

May I decline a paper that is outside my expertise?

Yes.

You may decline an unsuitable invitation. You must still complete the number of reviews associated with your declared slots, assuming sufficient suitable invitations are issued.

I am an experienced and qualified CHI reviewer – in fact I also meet the qualifications for being an Associate Chair. I am working with six students. Each student is submitting a separate paper with me. The students meet the reviewer qualifications but not the Associate Chair qualifications. What is my minimum commitment?

You must take at least one slot on each submission so that every paper includes an Associate-Chair-qualified author. Your minimum commitment is therefore six reviews. You may not leave your student authors to take all the reviewing slots on a paper.

On each two-author paper, the student could take the other three slots, meaning each student would commit to three reviews.

This example assumes that each student meets the minimum reviewer qualifications and has the capacity to complete three reviews.

I am an experienced CHI author working with six students, but none of the students meets the minimum reviewer qualifications. What is my commitment?

Because you are the only qualified reviewer on each author team, you would need to take all four slots for each submission.

Across six submissions, that is 24 reviews.

This is a substantial commitment. Senior authors and supervisors of students should discuss reviewing capacity with their teams before deciding how many papers to submit. Having done this you may decide to submit some of your papers to other venues rather than to CHI2027.

Review responsibilities should not be assigned automatically to the most junior team members simply because they have less institutional power. The policy asks teams to distribute work ethically and fairly, while recognising that only qualified authors may undertake it.

I submitted an honest but strongly negative review. Could my paper be desk-rejected because the Associate Chair disagrees with me?

No – not simply because the review is negative or because someone disagrees with your assessment.

Reasonable disagreement, justified negative recommendations, and good-faith minor mistakes are not grounds for declaring a review insufficient.

A review may fail the requirement when it does not meaningfully engage with the paper, is extremely brief or irrelevant, contains clear fabrications or misrepresentations, or is primarily produced by an automated system without meaningful human evaluation. Associate Chairs can raise concerns, but the Paper Chairs make the final determination.

I am named for review slots on several papers. What happens if I do not complete all of them?

Every submission on which you had a review responsibility slot, and were asked to do a review, will be desk-rejected. This does not necessarily mean every paper you co-authored will be rejected. It means every paper for which you were assigned a slot is at risk.

If a declared reviewer fails to fulfil their responsibility, their submission(s) are desk-rejected. For example, to clarify: Let’s say Tony submits two papers – one with Anna and one with Regan. On Regan’s paper he has one review responsibility slot, but none on Anna’s. In this case, if he does not fulfill his review requirement, only Regan’s paper gets desk rejected. However, if Tony has one review responsibility slot on both papers, but only does one of the reviews he was asked to do, then both Anna’s and Regan’s papers will get a desk rejected. 

I am an Associate Chair for CHI. Do these papers count toward my quota?

Yes, every paper you handle as an AC counts. That’s 15 slots already filled by taking on this important peer review role, which does not supply external reviews, but does provide meta-reviews. 

I am a Subcommunity Chair for CHI. Does this count toward my quota?

Yes. SCs (and paper chairs) will get 15 review ‘credits’ for participating in these roles. However, as we still need people to provide external reviews, we would appreciate other authors still being named on the submission for as being able to provide reviews.