Your submission must be original; it cannot be published or under concurrent review elsewhere.
Please ensure that you use the right template.
There is a page limit of 5 and the pages beyond 5 will be charged. Authors are encouraged to submit a paper of length proportional to its contribution and there are no arbitrary maximum (or minimum) length papers. The length of typical submissions is expected to be approximately 3,000–6,000 words excluding references and figure/table captions. Significantly longer (or shorter) submissions will be subject to additional scrutiny. Papers whose lengths are incommensurate with their contributions will be rejected.
Rigor and reproducibility: papers must include enough detail that the research can be reviewed for rigor and reproducibility. Papers that do not include enough detail to adequately assess the research may be rejected in the early reject phase.
Accessibility: Authors are strongly encouraged to work on improving the accessibility of their papers, including adding figure descriptions. If you have any questions or concerns about creating accessible submissions, please contact firstname.lastname@example.org.
Questions regarding the submission templates can be addressed by email@example.com. All additional questions regarding the paper submissions process should be directed to firstname.lastname@example.org.
Video figures: Video figures do not have a specified time limit for duration, although we recommend staying within 5 minutes. Details are available in the Guide to Submitting a Video.
Other Supplements: Other supplementary material may include, for example, survey text, experimental protocols, source code, and data, all of which can help others replicate your work. Any non-video supplementary material should be submitted as a single .zip file, including a README file with a description of the materials.
Reviewers are not required to review your supplementary materials, your paper submission must stand on its own.
If your submission is related to a concurrent submission or unpublished paper. Failure to disclose related concurrent submissions may result in desk rejection.
Step 3. Complete Submission
Submission Deadline: All materials – the paper submission, the video figure, and any other supplementary material – must be submitted before this deadline. No extensions will be granted.
Details on the review process itself are described in the Papers Review Process.
Please submit your contribution to paper submission system(If you have previously submitted your manuscript via email at email@example.com , you do not need to submit it again.).
Paper Review Process
Upon initial submission, the editors will determine whether the submission is appropriate for CCPQT or should be desk rejected. Desk rejects are made to save our reviewers' time.
Examples of desk rejects are:
Failure of declaration of concurrent submissions that are closely related to the submission.
Failure of declaration and/or citation of authors’ prior publications that are closely related to the submission.
Use of wrong formats.
All submissions must use the template specified in the Call for Submissions page.
Clearly out of scope for the conference.
Not written in English.
Obviously not a conference paper (patent disclosure, popular press article, a complete book, etc.).
Something is so broken in the paper that makes it impossible to review.
Desk rejected submissions will not be assigned to a reviewer, and their authors will receive a brief note about the rejection.
Papers that do not cite more than 5 works of the worldwide literature, out of 8 works.
For the submissions that are not desk rejected, editors will check whether each of them has been submitted to an appropriate reviewer with sufficient expertise to review. In a very exceptional case where the two reviewers do not have the right expertise to assess the submission, the editors will move it to another reviewers.
All reviewers are instructed to declare their conflicts of interests based on institutions and previous collaborations during the paper bidding phase. Reviewers are also instructed to express their preferences (or bids) on which submissions they would like to review. In this bidding phase, the title and abstract are the central information resources for reviewers to identify submissions they prefer to review. Therefore, it is very important for authors to write titles and abstracts that clearly convey the core contributions of their submissions.
The 3 reviewers will collaboratively check if a submission is a candidate for quick reject. The quick reject process entails considerable work for reviewers. Each paper will have at least 4 distinct(including editors), non-conflicted people that will have looked at any paper that is a potential quick reject, and all must agree that the paper would not have a chance of acceptance into the conference. The reviewer must first confer with the rest of two reviewers. The paper will not require 1 external reviewers and thus decrease the overall load on the community. At this point, the reviewer must write up a sufficient and constructive review detailing why this paper is being quick rejected which must be acknowledged by the rest of two reviewers. This review will be checked by Technical Chairs.
This quick reject process sounds very harsh because it only provides a small amount of feedback. We brought it in because it allows us to offer rapid feedback to authors so that they can resubmit to other venues and also enables our reviewers to focus on submissions that have a high chance of improving and impacting the community.
Note that quick reject is NOT as easily determined by a few straightforward criteria, nor determined by a single person. Care is taken for a full justification of why this paper has not been reviewed by external reviewers. The burden on the reviewers is particularly strong since they need to enter a complete and compelling review and the paper is still evaluated by 3reviewers.
The criteria for quick reject are:
Contribution is much too small given the length of the submitted paper (we expect that papers would on average 3000 words -6000 words in the format of template). This criterion includes papers that are far too long, as if someone submitted a book manuscript. Since there is no strict paper length, this is a subjective criterion, however if authors attempt to submit papers that are clearly inappropriate for a conference submission (extended book chapters, unedited reports), then a paper may be quick rejected to prevent the undue burden on external reviewers.
Grossly insufficient detail to replicate the apparatus or the experiment.
Grossly insufficient data to validate the analysis to support the claim.
Grossly insufficient literature review to contextualize and/or evaluate the proposed novelty/contribution to HCI in particular.
Paper is very sloppy: lots of typos, missing references, formatting issues (including large white spaces).
Round 1 Review Process
Reviewers will be asked to provide a detailed review of the submission and will be asked to provide a first round, summary decision placing the paper into one of the following categories:
Accept with Minor Revisions: There are only minor changes required to make the submission suitable for publication. The 1AC is responsible for ensuring the changes are made before the paper is fully accepted for publication.
Revise and Resubmit: The 1AC and reviewers feel that there is potential for a publishable outcome for the submission, but not without major revisions to address issues enumerated by the reviewers.
Reject: The reviewers do not feel that either of the categories above is appropriate. Note that unlike typical journals, the time frame for the Revise and Resubmit process is limited, and will not allow authors to execute another extensive implementation and/or evaluation or perform complete rewrite. A submission will thus be rejected if the reviewers feel that the required revisions would not be achievable within this short time frame.
For submissions with the accept with minor revisions, authors must include minor revisions requested by the reviewers and submit by the 1st round camera ready deadline. Reviewers who is responsible for the previous review will check the revised manuscript for final approval. In case revisions are not sufficient, editors will communicate with authors, and authors should respond quickly. Note that failure of addressing minor revision requests will result in the rejection of that submission.
Resubmission and Round 2 Review Process
Authors of the papers with the Revise and Resubmit decisions are invited to submit a revision of their submission by the resubmission deadline (see Important Dates). Revisions should use colors to highlight the changes to the document, and also include a response letter on how the reviewer comments have been addressed.
All the resubmissions will be reviewed by the original set of reviewers and external reviewers. The results of the current review(s) and online discussions will be shared with the new reviewers in such cases. The result of the second round review is either Accept with Minor Revisions or Reject. Authors do not have a chance for another round of major revisions.
Final revisions for papers with the decisions of Accept with Minor Revisions (in both 1st and 2nd rounds) will be checked by the program committee, and a final decision will be made on each paper and communicated with the authors.
CCPQT 2023 encourages authors to invite foreign authors as co-authors of contribution, developing national academic communication, promoting the in-depth development of scientific research.