How to Write CHI Papers with Jim Wallace - Episode Shownotes Episode Overview Getting a paper into CHI (the top Human-Computer Interaction conference) is harder than ever. In this episode, Professor Jim Wallace from the University of Waterloo reveals the exact writing process, template, and mindset that gets papers accepted. We discuss the abstract-first method, the three-paragraph expansion technique, and why hard and fast iteration is the only way papers actually get written. Guest Professor Jim WallaceAssociate Professor, School of Public Health Sciences, University of Waterloo Former CHI Associate Chair (Games and Play subcommittee) CHI Science Jam organizer Creator of the CHIzen LaTeX template Key Topics Covered What Types of Papers Does CHI Want? Harder to publish: Systems papers, bibliographical work, meta-reviews Growing trend: Reflective and meta papers about HCI research methods Exciting developments: Papers examining research practices, statistical methods, and theoretical foundations The balance between artifact-driven research and methodological reflection The Abstract-First Writing Method Jim's recommended approach for writing CHI papers: Start with the abstract Address these key questions: What problem are you solving? What's your solution? Who should care? What are your contributions? Expand to introduction Turn each abstract sentence into a paragraph Develop related work Expand each paragraph into three paragraphs Iterate hard and fast Write, realize it needs work, revise, repeat The CHIzen Template Jim created a LaTeX/Overleaf template called CHIzen (meaning "continuous improvement") that includes: Visualization wrappers and graphics tools Transparency and best practices for sharing materials Ethics materials templates A comprehensive checklist for paper submission Tips and tricks collected from working with many researchers Find it on GitHub: https://github.com/JimWallace/CHI-Zen CHI Paper Structure & Narrative CHI balances being both a scientific and design community Unlike health sciences with rigid structure, CHI emphasizes storytelling and narrative Key framework: Problem → Solution → Who Cares? Persuasion is essential You must convince reviewers the problem is valuable Quality Criteria & Review Process What reviewers look for: Context: Is the problem valuable and well-positioned? Methods: Are methods appropriate and rigorously applied? Clarity: Is the writing clear and well-presented? The evolution of expectations: 20 years ago: "The Wild West" - almost anything could be published Today: Power analyses, rigorous methods, careful justification required Risk: Expectation inflation may crush good ideas that aren't perfectly executed Being a Champion Reviewer Essential reading: Ken Hinckley's paper on being a champion Reviewers should champion good papers, not destroy them Be constructive and focus on positives Your job is to help papers succeed, not sink them Students often think reviewers are out to destroy their work - this shouldn't be the mindset Advice for Junior Researchers On writing your first paper: Pick a niche contribution - you can't please everyone Small steps and iteration are essential Learn from feedback from advisors and co-authors Don't expect perfection on the first draft On reviewing papers: Get involved early to see behind the scenes Be honest about what you don't know It's okay to decline reviews for methods you haven't used Focus on what you CAN comment on constructively On learning new methods: This is a career-long process, not something finished in a PhD Be honest about expertise gaps Reviewing helps calibrate your understanding Fairness in the Review Process Everyone in the process has the best intentions Authors don't see all the work happening behind the scenes Consistency is a major challenge When is a power analysis required? For which methods? Revise and resubmit processes (like CHI Play, ISS, CSCW) are moving in the right direction Second chances mean papers are only rejected for big, important reasons Current Trends & Future Directions CHI Play's new rubric system: Separating methods expertise from domain expertise Revise and resubmit models: Gaining traction across HCI conferences Transparency and reproducibility: Growing emphasis on sharing materials Qualitative methods: Increased popularity, especially during COVID-19 Key Papers & Resources Mentioned Inter-rater reliability paper by Norm McDonald et al. (CSCW) Statistical methods and null hypothesis testing (CHI Play) "HARKing No More" (CHI) Ken Hinckley's "Being a Champion" paper Essential reading for reviewers and ACs Greenberg and Buxton's "Usability Studies Considered Harmful" (2008/2009) - Including Dan Olson's panel comments on value networks Workshop on challenges for qualitative research/transparency (CHI) CHIzen LaTeX Template Available on GitHub Memorable Quotes "You could get almost anything published 20 years ago... you look at the types of rigor and the things that reviewers ask for today, and it's not even close." "The abstract, the intro, the related work - they're all basically the same thing. It's just longer versions of the same piece of writing." "You can't just write the whole paper and revise it. You've gotta focus on small pieces or small chunks that you can revise easily and then expand out as you go." "Students going in today just think that reviewers are complete... they're just gonna tear papers apart... I actually think we need to ease up a little bit." "Every single person in the process has the best of intentions... everyone really wants to have very constructive feedback and do the author's justice." Episode Notes This episode was originally recorded approximately 5 years ago and is being re-released as part of the relaunch of the podcast, now titled "How to Write Research Papers." The podcast is expanding its scope while maintaining its focus on helping researchers improve their academic writing. Host: Professor Lennart Nacke Production: How to Write Research Papers Podcast Episode Length: ~29 minutes For more episodes and resources, visit https://lennartnacke.substack.com Or join me on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@lennartnacke This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit lennartnacke.substack.com/subscribe
