Full Papers

  • 12 August 2012: Submissions start
  • 10 September 2012: Submission of full papers and tutorial/workshop proposals
  • 27 October-1 November 2 November 12pm EST, 2012 : Rebuttal Period
  • 19 November 2012: Notification of full paper acceptance
  • 6 January 2013: Final camera-ready full papers due
  • 3-6 March 2013: Main conference

Authors are required to submit full paper manuscripts in PDF (Adobe Acrobat) format. A maximum of eight camera-ready pages, including figures, are allowed for each full paper. Accepted full papers will be published in conference proceedings, archived in the ACM Digital Library, and will be presented in oral sessions.

To facilitate quality interdisciplinary reviewing, be sure to tag the main contributions as “human-centered,” “technology-centered,” or “both” when submitting full papers. Strong technology-centered papers contribute to novel and sound algorithmic, engineering, or computational methods that have the potential to improve robot performance when interacting with actual human users. Strong human-centered papers experimentally contribute to sound and interesting findings that have the potential to improve robot technology for interacting with humans with respect to usability, design, and similar topics.

Submissions for full papers are due on Monday, September 10, 2012 by 11:59:59 PDT. Submit your papers through the “paper submission and review” website. All authors will be invited and are strongly encouraged to participate in the review process.


  • Please use IEEE format. Do not use ACM format, which was used in HRI2011 and HRI2012. Templates are available for Word and LaTeX2e.
  • Please use the US letter format (not A4).
  • The maximum number of pages is 8 (including figures and references).
  • All papers for the conference must be submitted in PDF format.
  • Papers may not be submitted anonymously. Authors’ names etc. are not required to be hidden.

Please be aware that the proceedings will be printed in black and white (grayscale). Thus, if your papers contain color, we suggest that you verify the figures or images so that they reproduce well when printed in black and white.


Submit your paper through the “paper submission and review” website.

The HRI 2012 review process is not double-blinded. Supplementary materials (such as videos) can be attached to submissions. External links to videos and supplementary material in your paper are also allowed.

All authors are strongly encouraged to participate in the review process.

Questions about the HRI submission and review process can be addressed to hri2013-program-chairs@humanrobotinteraction.org.


Review criteria

All papers must make an original and substantive contribution to the field of human-robot interaction (HRI). Authors should clearly articulate the paper’s contribution to the field.

  • Originality. All papers must present original work. Authors should clearly articulate how the contribution relates to other work in HRI as well as the fields of study on which the paper draws. Submissions should not have been previously published or be under simultaneous review for any other conference or journal. Please consult with program co-chairs enough in advance of the submission deadline if you are not sure whether a previously published paper unduly or inappropriately overlaps with your current submission.
  • Novelty. The HRI conference is the place for innovative ideas. We welcome ‘big idea’ and provocative papers, even if they may not be perfectly implemented. We also welcome papers that bring together subfields.
  • Relevance. We invite broad participation. We welcome research with roots in robotics, psychology, artificial intelligence, cognitive science, HCI, human factors, organizational behavior, simulation, design, anthropology, and many other fields. As noted earlier, however, all papers must be relevant to the field of HRI. For example, a paper that describes a new face tracking algorithm or involves an elderly population needs to establish how the results directly contribute to HRI.
  • Soundness. A paper needs to be technologically/methodologically sound based on the criteria generally used for that technology/method within a given field.
  • For technology-centered papers. Please provide adequate details to indicate what was developed. Moreover, please provide evaluations commonly used in a given field as well as a path to “feasibility” for a given scenario of human-robot interaction. For example, a paper contributing a face recognition technology would likely use standard recognition metrics (e.g., ROC curve). In addition, the paper would likely include an evaluation of interactive performance in a given scenario.
  • For human-centered papers. Please provide adequate detail to indicate what was done, how the data was collected, from how many people, the characteristics of these people, what type of robot was involved (if a robot was used), if a wizard of oz technique was used, which part was controlled by a wizard, etc. Authors should give care to use correct terminology for their methods to avoid being evaluated against the incorrect set of criteria. For example, a user study of 5 people should be referred to as a user study and not an experiment. For papers with experiments, standards used in psychology for conducting and reporting experiments should be used. In addition, the paper would likely articulate its contribution either to design implications for a robot in the future or to basic science related to human-robot interaction.
  • Methodological flexibility. We recognize that different methods provide different ways of generating important knowledge in HRI. Thus we want to emphasize that we will treat all methods as valid a priori and evaluate each of them based on the contributions that they make to HRI.
  • Accessibility. All papers must be written to be accessible for a broad, interdisciplinary/multidisciplinary HRI audience.


Policy for a conflict of interest in the review process

A “conflict of interest” is defined as follows:

  1. Ph.D. thesis advisor or advisee
  2. Postdoctoral advisor or advisee
  3. Collaborators or co-authors for the past 48 months
  4. Any other individual or institution with which the investigator has financial ties


A reviewer who has a conflict of interest for one of the co-authors of a paper will not review that paper. Please decline the review request if you have a conflict of interest for the assigned paper. The PC member in charge will find an alternative reviewer.

Program Committee (PC) Members

A PC member who has a conflict of interest for a paper will not handle that paper in either a primary or secondary role, and will not participate in the decision process of the paper.

Program Co-Chairs

A program co-chair who has a conflict of interest for a paper will not participate in the review process for the paper. In the case where both program co-chairs have a conflict of interest, one of the persons below, who does not have a conflict of interest, in the following order, will lead the review process. She/he will take the role of “assigning the primary and secondary PC member”, and lead the discussion of the paper at the PC meeting to decide acceptance/rejection of the paper.

  1. One of the general chairs
  2. One of next year’s program co-chairs