First of all: If you are an author of a submitted full paper, you can expect the notification and final decision, including reviews, to be released in the coming hours. Make sure to watch your in
In total, of the 211 valid full paper submissions (a record number for HRI), only 51 were accepted (24% acceptance rate). The papers went through an intensive process reviewing, rebuttal, meta-reviews, sometimes championing, and detailed discussion at the PC meeting, which concluded on Saturday, Nov 19, with the final discussions and decisions.
How were the decisions made?
As with all submissions to HRI, a senior subcommittee chair assigned papers to a Program Committee (PC) member who served as the primary reviewer. This PC member assigned the paper to a minimum of three reviewers with expertise on the topic of your submission and interpreted these reviews to write a meta review. Authors had the
opportunity to provide a rebuttal, and the primary reviewer managed a discussion among the reviewers. A second PC member was assigned to confirm that the paper was appropriately evaluated, reviewing the paper, all the reviews, and your rebuttal, and to provide an additional perspective on the contributions of your work.
The Program Committee met in person for a 2-day meeting, led by the senior subcommittee chairs, where the papers that were discussed included the ones with an average score of at least 2.5, high variance in reviewer scores, or was “championed” by either the primary or secondary PC member for discussion. Championing ensures that papers that the PC members found to have important contributions, but might have received low scores, would still be discussed at the PC meeting.
At the Program Committee meeting, subcommittees met to discuss papers in light of their theme-specific evaluation criteria. Next, the entire Program Committee met as a large group to discuss the broader pool of papers, cutting across all subcommittees.
During the PC meeting, the quality of the paper, the reviews, and the rebuttal were discussed to form a conclusion about acceptance or rejection as well as to provide the best possible feedback in the reviews.