Experience Reports Track

Submissions will be rejected without review (desk reject) if (1) they do not comply with all submission instructions provided here and at the FULL PAPERS GENERAL CALL, (2) they are outside the scope of the Experience Reports 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 reviewers’ comments 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 Experience Reports track?

• Contribution to the community: Are the discussions and contributions presented meaningful to the H C I community and practitioners in the field? Articles submitted to this track do not necessarily need to advance the state of knowledge/art.

• Quality of textual presentation: Is the article well written and adequately presented in terms of language, content, and form, following the event standard?

• Characterization of the context: Is the context well characterized, placing the experience in time and space? Is the presentation of the report well justified?

• Reference to related works: Are references presented that value other experiences? Attention: articles submitted to this track do not necessarily need to advance the state of knowledge/art.

• Theoretical-methodological foundation: Does the reported experience have an adequate and solid theoretical-methodological basis? Are decisions about the choice of practices, methods, and concepts adequately justified?

• Quality of experience presentation: Is the reported experience aligned with the theoretical-methodological foundation? Have the parties involved been introduced? Are the materials and methods adequately characterized so that others can reproduce them?

• Reflections on the experience: Are the discussions consistent with the theoretical-methodological foundation presented? Are they significant enough to provoke revisions/evolution of local practices and/or within the H C I community?