SOBRE ESTE EPISÓDIO
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
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
