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