- May 27, 2011: Title and Abstract requested (to improve reviewer match)
- June 3: 11:59 p.m. PDT: Submission due
- July 22: First-round notification (Conditional Accept, Revise & Resubmit, or Reject)
- August 30, 5:00 p.m. PDT: Revised papers due *Extended due to power outages*
- October 13-14: Program Committee meets
- October 21: Final notifications
- November 21, 5:00 p.m. PDT: "Camera-ready" due
Submissions of Title and Abstract, and the papers and notes themselves, should be made via the Precision Conference System at https://precisionconference.com/~cscw12/.
CSCW is an international and interdisciplinary conference focused on how technology intersects with social practices. Note the earlier submission deadline, intended to reduce conflict with the CHI Conference. This enables a new two-phase review process intended to increase paper diversity and quality, described in detail below.
We invite submissions that detail existing practices or inform the design or deployment of systems. The purview of CSCW includes, but is not limited to, technologically-enabled or enhanced communication, collaboration, information sharing, and coordination. It includes socio-technical activities at work, in the home, in education, in healthcare, in the arts, for socializing and for entertainment. New results or new ways of thinking about, studying or supporting shared activities can be in these and related areas:
- System design. Hardware, architectures, infrastructures, interaction design, technical foundations, or toolkits that enable the building of new collaborative systems.
- Domain-specific collaborative applications. For healthcare, transportation, gaming (for enjoyment or work), ICT4D, sustainability, collective intelligence or global collaboration, or other domains.
- Collaboration systems based on emerging technologies. Mobile and ubiquitous computing, game engines, virtual worlds, and sensor-based environments.
- Emerging trends. Studies or new designs addressing social networking, online gaming, crowdsourcing and collective intelligence, information management, user-generated content, creativity in groups, virtual worlds, collaborative information seeking.
- Crossing boundaries. Studies, prototypes, or other investigations that explore interactions across disciplines, distance, languages, generations, and cultures, to help better understand how to transcend social, temporal, and spatial boundaries.
- Theories and models. Critical analysis or organizing theory with clear relevance to the design or study of collaborative systems.
- Empirical investigations. Findings, guidelines, ethnographic studies of technologies, practices or use of communication, collaboration and social networking technologies.
- Methodologies and tools. Novel methods or combinations of approaches and tools used in building systems or studying their use.
Papers (up to 10 pages) and Notes (4 pages) should detail original research contributions. Papers and Notes will be presented at the CSCW conference and will be included in the conference proceedings archived in the ACM Digital Library. CSCW does not accept submissions that were published previously in formally reviewed publications or that are currently submitted elsewhere.
Papers and Notes go through the same review process. Submissions must be in the HCI Archive Format. They should cite relevant published research or experience, highlight novel aspects of the submission, and identify the most significant contributions. Evaluation is on the basis of originality, significance, quality of research, quality of writing, and contribution to conference program diversity. Please use the guidelines below in considering whether the contribution size or scope of your work is most suitable for a ten-page Paper or a four-page Note.
|A Paper must break new ground and provide complete and substantial support for its results and conclusions as a significant contribution to the field.||A Note must report new results that represent a contribution to the field. Compared to Papers, Notes may include less discussion of related work, evaluation, or implementation detail. Notes are held to the same standard of scientific quality as Papers, but more focused and succinct in scope and scale.|
|Papers must be at most 10 pages, including the abstract. Figures and references must be formatted according to the submission instructions.||Notes must be no longer than 4 pages, including the abstract. Figures and references must be formatted according to the detailed submission instructions.|
Send queries about Paper and Note submissions to firstname.lastname@example.org.
Papers and Notes are subject to blind reviewing. Your submission should have authors' names and affiliations removed and avoid obvious identifying features. Citations to your own relevant work should not be anonymous, but please cite it without identifying yourself as the author. For example, say "Prior work by [author]" instead of "In my prior work."
Papers and Notes must include an abstract of no more than 150 words. Titles and Abstracts that are uploaded to PCS early will be used to find the best possible reviewer matches. Consider submitting a video that illustrates your work, either as a video figure judged as part of the submission (no more than two minutes long and 30MB in size) or as a longer stand-alone submission to the video track (Call for Videos).
CSCW 2012 Papers and Notes submissions must be uploaded online at the PCS submission system by 5 p.m. PDT on June 3, 2012 to be considered. Confidentiality of submitted material will be maintained. Upon acceptance, the titles, authorship, and abstracts of Papers and Notes will be used in the Advance Program. Submissions should contain no information or material that will be proprietary or confidential at the time of publication, and should cite no publication that will be proprietary or confidential at that time.
Final versions of accepted Papers and Notes must be formatted according to the detailed instructions. Copyright release forms must be signed for inclusion in the proceedings and ACM Digital Library.
CSCW 2012 will continue the "Best of CSCW" awards program, in accordance with SIGCHI guidelines. Upon acceptance, some Papers or Notes will be nominated for additional review to identify "Honorable Mention" and "Best" awards. Approximately 5% of submissions may be nominated and 1% of total submissions awarded Best Paper or Best Note.
New review process
The conference was asked to move the submission date to early June. We are using the extra time to introduce a new process that includes giving authors a chance to revise Paper and Note submissions after initial reviews. We have designed a process to accomplish this without increasing the overall reviewing burden.
Papers and Notes will undergo two review cycles. After the first review a submission will receive either "Conditional Accept," "Revise/Resubmit," or "Reject." Authors of papers that are not rejected have about 6 weeks to revise and resubmit them. The revision will be reviewed as the basis for the final decision. This is like a journal process, except that it is limited to one revision with a strict deadline.
The primary contact author will be sent the first round reviews. "Conditional Accepts" only require minor revisions and resubmission for a second quick review. "Revise/Resubmits" will require significant attention in preparing the resubmission for the second review. Authors of Conditional Accepts and Revise/Resubmits will be asked to provide a description of how reviewer comments were addressed. Submissions that are rejected in the first round cannot be revised for CSCW 2012, but authors can begin reworking them for submission elsewhere. Authors need to allocate time for revisions after July 22, when the first round reviews are returned. Final acceptance decisions will be based on the second submission, even for Conditional Accepts.
Although the new process includes a revision cycle for about half of the submissions, community input and analysis of CSCW 2011 data has allowed us to streamline the process. It should mean less work for most authors, reviewers, and AC members.
The revision cycle enables authors to spend a month to fix the English, integrating missing papers in the literature, redoing an analysis, or adopt terminology familiar to this field, problems that in the past could lead to rejection. It also provides the authors of papers that would have been accepted anyway to fix minor things noted by reviewers.
The new process is not an effort to raise the quality bar for CSCW. The intent is to give more authors a chance to clear the bar. This process could lead to more diverse kinds of papers qualifying. Reviewers have more time to consider the significance as well as the technical quality of submissions. Authors from related disciplines have an opportunity to adjust to the literature and terminology found in CSCW.
This is not an invitation to submit extended abstracts or incomplete papers. As in the past, submit the paper that you would like to have published. Incomplete submissions will not be reviewed. Perhaps half of the submissions will be rejected on the first round, enabling the reviewers to focus on papers that have good chances for acceptance. The strongest submissions will get Conditional Acceptances in the first round and require few or no revisions. Acceptance is not guaranteed for papers making the second round, but we expect that most papers that undergo serious efforts to address the reviewer comments should be accepted.
Additional author benefits: The rebuttal, which was focused on pointing out reviewing flaws, is replaced by revision, which can be more appealing to read and actually improve your work. Authors of papers not making it through the first round should benefit from very quick turnaround.
If more papers reach the quality bar this way, the conference should be the strongest ever. However, there are concerns that evaluators who look only at acceptance rate metrics might fail to understand that the quality level is the same or higher. We have prepared ways to address this; feel free to contact us for details on this or other aspects of the review process.
This is an experiment. We have received tremendous support and input from the CSCW community. CSCW 2012 should have an exceptional program, with more papers of high quality and diversity, benefiting us all.
Papers & Notes Co-chairs
Jonathan Grudin, Microsoft Research
Gloria Mark, University of California, Irvine
John Riedl, University of Minnesota