Submissions will be rejected without review (desk reject) if (1) they do not comply with all submission instructions provided here and at the GENERAL CALL FULL PAPERS, (2) they are outside the scope of the Research Track, or (3) they have been submitted or published in any other forum (conference or journal). All other papers will be reviewed by at least three members of the program committee. If the submission is accepted, the authors should consider the comments from the reviewers to prepare the final version of the paper.

Review the following checklist. Reviewers should evaluate each paper according to these criteria:

• Adherence to the track: does the paper adhere to the Research track? Check the flowchart available at link XXX.
• Contribution to the field: are the discussions and research contributions presented relevant to the H C I community and practitioners in the field? Papers submitted to this track must necessarily advance the state of knowledge/art. Contributions must be explicit in the text.
• Quality of textual presentation: is the paper well written and adequately presented in terms of language, content and form, following the event template?
• Characterization of the context: Is the study’s context clearly defined, demonstrating its relevance in time and in relation to existing literature? Is the research problem clearly addressed and well justified?
• References to related works: Are relevant references cited to highlight the value of similar research? Is there a discussion on the similarities and differences between related research and the study being presented?
• Theoretical-methodological basis: do the research and contributions reported have an adequate and solid theoretical-methodological basis? Are the methodology and its steps well described? Does the text provide enough detail to allow other researchers to replicate the methodology?
• Reflections on the research: Are the discussions aligned with the theoretical and methodological approach presented? Are they significant enough to provoke revisions/evolution of local practices and/or within the H C I community?
• Quality of the presentation of the research results: are the results well described, and is it possible to reproduce the research? Are the research findings and results consistent with the theoretical and methodological framework? Are the parties involved presented (anonymized)? Are the materials and methods adequately characterized, so that other people or groups can re-signify them?
• If the work is a literature review: does the text explicitly state the type of systematic technique used? Does the text describe the research protocol, with all the steps, so that other researchers can re-interpret it? Does the text describe the resources and tools used in the steps? Is the number of people (judges) who participated in the selection stages of the literature studies explicit? Do the results presented contribute to the H C I community and to the state of the art? It is important to note that this is not just a trail of reports.