Process of Best Paper Award

This process, aligned with the track coordinators and approved by CEIHC, applies to the tracks of Research Papers, Innovative Ideas and Emerging Results, Experience Reports, Posters and Demonstrations, and IHC in Practice.

1. Track coordinators identify the top five papers based on their rankings in JEMS:

   • To avoid conflicts of interest:
     • If one of the coordinators has a paper accepted in the track, the other coordinator must perform the initial verification and, if necessary, conduct the process without the participation of the author-coordinator.
     • If both coordinator persons have papers accepted in the track, the initial verification will be done by the program coordination (similarly, if needed, the program coordination takes over the process).
     • If both program coordinators also have papers accepted in the track, the initial verification (and, if necessary, the process's conduction) will be handled by CEIHC.

   • Steps in JEMS to generate the ranking: Papers -> List Papers

     • Listing style: Paper list
     • Include: Accepted
     • Fields to show: paper number; paper title; average review score
     • Click on GAvg to sort by global average
     • Select the top five papers.

2. Track coordinators analyze the reviews that the five papers received in terms of quality, coherence, and depth to verify if the papers should indeed be nominated:

   • In case of doubts, coordinators must read the article(s).
   • Less than five papers may be nominated if the coordinators assess that there are not enough suitable papers for nomination.
   • Papers from the sixth position onwards may also be analyzed if there are any among the top five that are not considered suitable for nomination.

3. Track coordinators invite at least three individuals (if more, it's recommended to have an odd number) to form the committee that will evaluate the nominated papers:

   • The committee should be formed shortly after the final versions of the papers are submitted and pre-analyzed by the track coordinators to allow for a reasonable timeframe for the committee's work.
   • Committee members cannot be authors of the nominated papers.
   • Committee members must not have been reviewers of the nominated papers.
   • Committee members should be individuals from the community, for example: those who attend and publish in IHC/JIS, those who are or have been part of CEIHC, or those who have been track coordinators.

4. Track coordinators create an evaluation form to be passed to the committee, with two sets of predefined criteria:

   • General IHC Criteria:

     • Contribution to the IHC field (for Experience Reports track, it will be used: Contribution to the IHC community).
     • Technical correctness (for Experience Reports track, it will be used: Quality of experience presentation).

   • Specific criteria for each track (defined by track coordinators and must be consistent with the review form used in the track):

     • Research Track: Originality
     • Innovative Ideas and Emerging Results Track: Originality and Innovation
     • Experience Reports Track: Reflections on the experience

     • Posters and Demonstrations Track:

       • Posters: How promising is the work in progress?
       • Demonstrations: Applicability (how applicable is the tool in practice?)

     • HCI in Practice Track:

       • Contribution to the business and academic communities.
   • There is an open field for additional comments to complement each member's evaluation.

5. Track coordinators send the following to the committee members:

   • Anonymous papers
   • Anonymous reviews received in the track
   • Evaluation form with all criteria

6. The committee evaluates the nominated papers in two stages within a period of up to two weeks:

   • Each committee member fills out their individual evaluation form.
   • The committee meets to discuss and deliberate on the final result.

7. The committee communicates the evaluation results to the track coordinators:

   • Best paper
   • Honorable mentions (usually given for the second and third places)

8. Track coordinators communicate the results to the program coordinators, being careful to maintain maximum confidentiality.

9. Program coordinators request the production of certificates from the general organization.

10. Track coordinators notify all authors who are competing for the award.

11. Program coordinators communicate the information about the nominees and awardees to partner journal editors for invitations to submit extended versions.