Guidance for Reviewers

Guidance for Reviewers

We thank you for contributing your time and expertise to reviewing for NordiCHI 2026. High-quality peer review is essential to maintaining the quality and integrity of the conference.

Purpose of reviewing

The goal of reviewing is to assess whether a paper makes a credible contribution to Human–Computer Interaction (HCI), and to provide constructive feedback that helps authors improve their work. Reviews play a central role in shaping the final program.

What makes a good review

A strong review is:

  • Constructive: Offers feedback that helps the authors improve the paper
  • Specific: Clearly explains strengths and weaknesses, with reference to the paper
  • Justified: Provides reasons for the recommendation, not just a score
  • Respectful: Maintains a professional and collegial tone

A high-quality review is typically at least several paragraphs in length. Very short reviews without sufficient explanation are rarely helpful to authors or ACs. As a useful guide, consider the level of feedback you would hope to receive on your own work.

Where concerns are raised, reviewers should, where possible, suggest how the work could be strengthened.

What to consider

When forming your recommendation, consider:

  • The paper’s contribution to HCI
  • The originality of the work
  • The quality and appropriateness of the research methods
  • Engagement with relevant prior work
  • Clarity of writing and presentation

Papers should be assessed on their own terms, recognizing that contributions to HCI may take different forms.

Confidentiality and ethics

Submissions under review are confidential and should not be shared or discussed outside the review process. Reviewers should not attempt to identify the authors of a submission.

If you believe you have a conflict of interest, or recognize the work and feel unable to provide an objective review, please contact the Associate Chair as soon as possible (see ACM Conflict of Interest Policy). Research involving human participants should also adhere to established ethical standards (see ACM Ethics Policy).

Use of generative AI tools

Reviewers may use generative AI tools to improve the clarity and readability of their reviews. However, no confidential or identifying information (including submission content, author identity, or reviewer identity) should be entered into such tools.

Reviewers remain fully responsible for the content, accuracy, and judgment expressed in their reviews, including when using such tools.

For further guidance, see ACM Peer Review Policy.

Review form

In the review form, you will be asked to make a recommendation for the paper, choosing between the following options:

  • Definite accept: I would argue strongly for accepting this paper.
  • Probably accept: I would argue for accepting this paper.
  • Borderline, but somewhat closer ‘accept’ than ‘reject’.
  • Borderline, but somewhat closer ‘reject’ than ‘accept’.
  • Probably reject: I would argue for rejecting this paper.
  • Definite reject: I would argue strongly for rejecting this paper.

Your review should motivate your score and cover the following:

  • Significance: Evaluate the paper’s contribution to HCI and the benefit that others can gain from it: why do the contribution and benefit matter? Are the results interpreted and their relevance illustrated in the discussion?
  • Originality: What new ideas or approaches are introduced? An acceptable paper must make a clear contribution to Human–Computer Interaction.
  • Research quality: Does the research method fit the problem and is it applied appropriately? Are the method and implementation (if applicable) presented in a replicable way? Is the study, system or idea sensibly evaluated?
  • Previous work: Is the contribution well grounded in the literature?
  • Presentation clarity: Is the motivation of the study, system or idea clear? Are the results presented appropriately? Do you have any other specific comments on the presentation of the paper?

If you express concerns, please cite a source for your objection (e.g., a specific paper, a set of professional guidelines, or a standard textbook). This helps authors improve their submissions and enables the 1AC to evaluate potentially conflicting reviews.

Final note

Reviewing is a professional responsibility. We ask that you take care in reading the paper and in preparing your review, and submit it on time to support a fair and efficient review process.