Cscw Review Process

---
name: cscw-review-process
description: Use when interpreting where a CSCW paper stands in review — the PACMHCI journal model's decision vocabulary (Revise for External Review, Revise and Resubmit, Conditional Accept), same-reviewer re-review, the rolling editorial board, and what each outcome statistically implied in the last cycle.
---

# CSCW Review Process

CSCW reviews papers the way a journal does, wearing a conference's name. Decisions
come in revision vocabulary, revised papers return to the **same reviewers**, and —
under the rolling model launched for CSCW 2027+ — the process is run by an
**editorial board** (Editors-in-Chief Amy Bruckman and Eric Gilbert, with handling
editors per methodological track) rather than a per-year program committee. Reading
the process correctly changes how you write, revise, and wait.

## The decision ladder (2026-cycle vocabulary)

| Decision | What it means | What it asks of you |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Revise for External Review | Screeners saw promise but flaws worth fixing *before* reviewers are spent on it | A focused repair on a short clock; treat as a free pre-review |
| Revise and Resubmit (R&R) | The default serious outcome: reviewers want a substantially revised paper, which they will re-read | The full revision campaign (`cscw-author-response`) |
| Conditional Accept with Minor Changes | The paper is in, pending verifiable edits | Execute precisely; do not renegotiate scope |
| Accept | Done; production begins | `cscw-camera-ready` |
| Reject | The venue is declining this version | Post-mortem before any re-entry |

Calibration from the final fixed cycle (May 2025, feeding CSCW 2026): after
external review, only **33.8%** of papers received a final decision — **66.2%
received R&R**. In the second round, 152 papers were accepted (61 outright in
March 2026, 91 via minor changes) and 44 were rejected. Two structural lessons:

1. **R&R is the main sequence, not a consolation.** A paper that survives to
   external review most likely enters a revision loop; budget for it from day one.
2. **The second round is a real filter.** Roughly a fifth of R&R papers still
   failed; a revision is a second full evaluation, not a formality.

## Same-reviewer re-review: the defining mechanic

Unlike rebuttal-based conferences, CSCW's revision loop returns to people who
remember the first version. Consequences:

- Every reviewer request becomes a **tracked obligation**; the re-review begins
  from the response letter, not from page one.
- Contradicting your own round-one text without flagging it reads as evasion; a
  visible change log builds the trust that converts R&R into acceptance.
- Reviewer identity is stable, so *tonal* repair matters: a defensive round-one
  response poisons a round the same person will judge.

## The rolling editorial board (CSCW 2027+)

- Submissions go to an EiC or Associate Editor matched to the paper's
  **methodological track** (track boundaries were 待核实 at the 2026-07-08 check);
  the editor recruits expert reviewers and owns the decision.
- Advertised pace: decisions roughly **3-4 months** from submission, continuous
  rather than batched.
- Practical shifts for authors: no bidding lottery — editor matching makes the
  abstract and keywords *routing inputs*, so write them for the editor who will
  triage; and there is no cohort, so your paper is not competing against a
  deadline batch but against the standard itself.

## Waiting-time interpretation

```text
[< 1 month]    likely in editor triage / reviewer recruitment — silence is normal
[2-4 months]   in review; the advertised decision window (rolling)
[> 4-5 months] polite status query to the handling editor is appropriate
[R&R issued]   your clock now: the revision deadline is set per paper —
               confirm it in the decision letter, don't assume a default
```

## Standing-report format

```text
[Stage]     triage / external review / R&R round n / minor changes / decision
[Regime]    rolling (editorial board) / residual fixed-cycle
[Reviewers] same-set re-review expected? yes (R&R) / new assignment
[Base rate] last verified cycle: 66.2% R&R after external review; ~78% of
            round-two papers accepted (152 of 196)
[Next move] <the single action that advances the paper now>
```

All statistics and names verified 2026-07-08 against cscw.acm.org blog posts and
the rolling CFP; the rolling model is explicitly a soft launch, so expect its
mechanics to be tuned — re-verify before relying on any number here.