HCI Review Process

The goal of the HCI review process is not only to judge which papers are good enough to publish, but more importantly to help authors improve their initial submissions. The review process covers the time from initial submission to acceptance or rejection. After acceptance, papers enter the HCI production process.

The Editor oversees the review process, and delegates assignments to members of the Editorial Board. When an Author submits a paper, it is assigned to a Review Editor, who is a member of the Editorial Board. The Review Editor has the authority and responsibility to judge the paper, choose Reviewers, recommend revisions to the Author, and to decide on acceptance or rejection. The Review Editor consults with the Editor when needed. The Author deals directly with the Review Editor until a final decision has been made. The Administrative Editor coordinates the review process by keeping in contact with the Editor, Authors, and Review Editors.

The length of the review process depends on many variables. Reviewing is done on a voluntary basis and depends on the responsibility of all in the process. HCI's goal is to review initial submissions and respond to the Author within three or four months. The process also depends on how much revision is required and how long the Author takes to do revisions. The typical review scenario below typically takes nine or more months.

Typical Review Scenario

This typical scenario involves two rounds of revisions, the first for major revisions and the second for minor revisions, before acceptance. However, the paper could be rejected at any of the steps marked (R) below.

1. Author: Writes paper. Consults HCI's Information for Initial Submissions. Submits paper to Administrative Editor.
2. Administrative Editor: Logs paper with an HCI manuscript number and notifies Author.
3. Editor: Screens paper for appropriateness for HCI, possibly by soliciting an assessment from a member of the Editorial Board. (R)
4. Editor: Solicits a Review Editor.
5. Administrative Editor: Sends submission materials to Review Editor and notifies Author who the Review Editor is.
6. Review Editor: Solicits four Reviewers. Sends paper to Reviewers with a deadline.
7. Reviewers: Review paper (following the Reviewer Instructions). Return reviews to Review Editor.
8. Review Editor: Assesses reviews and judges acceptability of paper. (R) Formulates instructions for revising paper. Sends to Author.
9. Administrative Editor: Contacts Author to check on the progress of the revision. 
10. Author: Revises paper. Submits revised paper to Review Editor.
11. Review Editor: Sends out revised paper to two selected Reviewers.
12. Reviewers: Re-review revised paper and send results to Review Editor.
13. Review Editor: Assesses reviews and judges acceptability of paper. (R) Formulates instructions for revising paper. Sends to Author.
14. Author: Revises paper. Submits second revision to Review Editor.
15. Review Editor: Assesses revised paper and judges it acceptability. (R) Accepts paper for publication. Notifies Author and Administrative Editor.
16. (See HCI Production Process for next steps.)

Special Issue Process

Special issues are organized on an ad hoc basis on a variety of topics. Sometimes the Editor solicits special issues, and sometime researchers approach the Editor with proposed topics. After negotiation, each special issue is assigned one or more Special Issue Editors, who solicit papers and manage the review process.

The review process for a special issue submission is same as for a regular paper, except that the Review Editor is one of the Special Issue Editors. Special Issues necessarily follow a strict schedule, which is set by the Editor and Special Issue Editors.