CHI 2027 — Paper keyword selector

What kind of expertise would an ideal reviewer have to effectively review this work?  Tag your paper across the four facets. Selections feed AC/reviewer matching.
How to use this tool

You're tagging your paper against four facets. Selections happen at the sub-pile level (the second-level names), with a fallback to whole-pile tags if no sub-pile fits.

  • Domain — the topical area(s) your paper contributes to. Required: 1–5 sub-piles.
  • Method / Approach — your method or epistemological orientation (qualitative, RTD, etc.). Required: 1–2 sub-piles.
  • Users — population studied, if a specific population is the focus. Optional: 0–2 sub-piles.
  • Primary Contribution — the kind of contribution your paper makes. Required: exactly 1.

Tips:

  • Use the search box to find sub-piles by name or by example keyword (the greyed words in parentheses are example keywords from prior CHI papers — they help you find the right sub-pile, but you don't tag those individually).
  • Use the facet pills to focus on one facet at a time while browsing.
  • If no sub-pile fits, you can tag the whole pile as a fallback — the tool will warn you, since pile tags are coarser.
  • Your selections appear in the right-hand cart with a copyable summary at the bottom.
Your task here (feedback round)

Pick two of your own published papers — ideally spanning different areas — and tag each across Domain / Method / Users / Primary Contribution.

Important framing: you are not tagging "what is this paper about?" You are tagging "what expertise should my reviewer have to do a good job reviewing this work?" Hold that question in mind throughout. We want to know whether this reframing lands, or whether you instinctively default back to topic-tagging.

While tagging, please notice — as the author:

  • Reviewer expertise you would have wanted to ask for but couldn't express.
  • Keywords or sub-piles that sit under the wrong pile.
  • Pile/sub-pile names that confused you or felt off.
  • Whether the per-facet caps (Domain 1–5, Method 1–2, Users 0–2, Primary Contribution exactly 1) felt right, or constraining.

Then capture everything in the feedback form linked in the email.

Time budget: ~7 minutes total (≈3 min per paper). Don't be exhaustive.