CHI keyword redesign — feedback activity

Thanks for taking the time. The whole thing is ~20 minutes.

The keywords redesign is focused on paper routing: getting papers into the hands of the right reviewers. We have two goals:

  1. From the reviewer's perspective: "Which research areas are you current on, and excited about reviewing?"
  2. From the author's perspective on a given paper: "What kind of expertise would an ideal reviewer have to effectively review this work?"

As such, the intention of the keywords is now different. It is not about one's identity as a researcher, and it is not about the intellectual details of the paper itself.

Total time: ~20 minutes. Hard ceiling: 30. Stop and submit whenever you run out of patience — partial feedback is still useful. Tick the boxes as you go (state is saved in your browser).
1

Build your reviewer profile≈7 min

Tag yourself as if you were signing up to review for CHI 2027 across Domain / Method / Users.

We limit how many keywords a reviewer can claim expertise in — this assists with targeted routing.

The question to answer: Which research areas are you current on, and excited about reviewing?

While doing this, watch — as a reviewer, not as an author — for:

  • Missing: piles or sub-piles you'd expect to find and couldn't.
  • Mis-grouped: keywords or sub-piles in the wrong place.
  • Mis-named: pile/sub-pile names that confused you or felt off.
Open person.html →
2

Tag two of your own papers≈7 min

Pick two of your own published papers — ideally ones that span different areas. Tag each across Domain / Method / Users / Primary Contribution.

The question to answer: What kind of expertise would an ideal reviewer have to effectively review this work? Avoid keying in keywords that simply describe the work.

While doing this, watch — as the author — for:

  • Missing: expertise you'd have wanted a reviewer to have but couldn't express via the taxonomy.
  • Mis-placed: keywords that sit under the wrong pile/sub-pile.
  • Cardinality: did the per-facet caps (Domain 1–5, Method 1–2, Users 0–2, Primary Contribution exactly 1) feel right, or constraining?
Open paper.html →
3

Fill the feedback form≈5 min

The form is mostly short-answer with a few scales. It mirrors the structure above, so you can answer as you go if you prefer. If you run out of time mid-task, submit whatever you have.

Open the feedback form →
Optional

Browse the full keyword set≈3 min

Our current working version of the keywords. Two levels of buckets: big piles and sub-piles; each sub-pile contains normalized versions of author keywords. Hover a sub-pile to see those keywords.

While some keywords are grouped, the intention is not to say that they are the same; rather, the idea is that the expertise within that grouped keyword ought to be effective for paper routing.

Open the keyword view →