• facebook icon
  • twitter icon
  • google+ icon

Papers versus Notes: What is the difference?

CHI Papers and Notes are treated very similarly in the submission, review and publication process. Whether you choose to submit a Paper or a Note, it must make a significant contribution if it is to be accepted. However, you should be aware of the differences between the two.

Both CHI Papers and CHI Notes typically present mature, solid work. They are not appropriate for reporting preliminary results of work in progress. Consider the Work-in-Progress category, with a later submission deadline, if your planned submission is not completed and well-polished research.

What is a CHI Paper?

A CHI Paper, which is 10 pages in length (maximum), must break new ground and provide complete and substantial support for its results and conclusions. Successful submissions typically represent a major advance for the field of HCI.

What is a CHI Note?

A CHI Note, which is 4 pages in length (maximum), is a much more focused and succinct contribution to the research program and is likely to have a smaller — yet still significant — scope of contribution than CHI papers. For example, Notes on applications may not cover the entire iterative design cycle (observation, design, implementation, evaluation, etc.) but may instead go into depth in specific areas. CHI Notes are not expected to include a discussion of related work that is as broad and complete as that of a submission to the Papers venue.

CHI Notes will be drawn from the same general types of contributions as Papers, as listed in the page Selecting a contribution type. The following descriptive examples, which are characterized in contrast to submissions to the CHI Papers venue, may be helpful in understanding what kind of submissions may be suitable for CHI Notes:

  • A new implementation approach that has demonstrably addressed a significant technical issue (without extensive detail of the design process or evaluation of the implementation).
  • A new interaction technique and evidence of its utility compared to known techniques (described in sufficient detail to assist an expert reader in replicating the technique, but without exhaustive implementation detail and evaluation).
  • An incremental improvement or variation of an existing interaction technique with convincing evaluation.
  • A new methodology for designing or studying interactive systems that has demonstrable benefits for the HCI community (without extensive evaluation of the methodology).
  • A case study of the use of a system in a domain not typically studied by HCI researchers.
  • An analysis of a specific situation that could benefit from HCI research, especially situations not typically considered by HCI researchers.
  • A focused study of a specific situation or technique that adds insight into how that situation or technique is considered within HCI.