Overview
The CI and HCOMP 2026 conferences are committed to a transparent and fair evaluation process for all submitted papers. To achieve this goal and to assist authors in preparing their submissions, we have made our review criteria publicly available online. We intend for this approach to enhance the openness of our peer-review process and to provide guidance to authors as they prepare their submissions. This may be particularly beneficial for early-career researchers and those from diverse academic backgrounds who may be new to our venues.
Evaluation Metrics
Relevance
- How relevant is the work to the topics of interest to the CI and HCOMP conferences? (see the comprehensive Topics of Interest page)
- Are many conference attendees likely to be interested?
Novelty and Significance
- Is the research question important and relevant to the field?
- Where does the paper fall on the spectrum from incremental to transformative?
- Does the paper present novel ideas, methods, or findings?
- Does the paper establish a new problem? / Are new methods or theorems proposed? / Is evaluation conducted on novel data? / Are new evaluation procedures described for establishing validity?
- Does the paper contribute meaningfully to existing knowledge?
- Does it challenge accepted knowledge and practice? / Does it prompt or enable new avenues of research?
- How significantly will this work change future research and practice in the field?
- Is the problem or approach so novel that it may be difficult for the authors to rigorously evaluate or for the reviewers to assess?
- How likely is this paper to be cited?
Data, Code and Resources
- Do the authors commit to sharing any new datasets, source code, and/or other resources for others to use?
- If so:
- Are many people likely to use these new resources?
- How greatly would these new resources impact future research and practice?
Reproducibility
- Are the methods clear and described in sufficient detail?
- Are the resources used in the paper (e.g., data, code, computing infrastructure) already publicly available, committed to be shared by the authors, or easily substitutable with similar resources?
- Could someone else conduct similar experiments to verify the results?
Soundness and Validity
- Are the research methods and analyses appropriate, sufficient, and correctly employed?
- Are the conclusions supported by the results?
- Is the work brought to an appropriate state of completion?
- Were appropriate ethical guidelines followed in conducting the research?
- Are the limitations of the study acknowledged and discussed?
Citations and Prior Work
- Do authors cite the prior work most relevant to their study?
- Do authors discuss all prior work needed to interpret and assess their paper?
- Is the review of prior work correct and sufficiently detailed?
- Are all in-text citations included in the references section?
Presentation and Writing
- Is the English writing correct and comprehensible?
- Are the ideas, methods, results, and discussions well-presented?
- Are research questions and major findings clearly articulated?
- Is any domain-specific terminology and methodology explained for a diverse CI and HCOMP audience?