PAPERS

INTENDED CONTRIBUTIONS

Intended contributions are used to match each paper to an Associate Chair and reviewers who have expertise in that particular area. Each author is asked to select one main (and one optional second) intended contribution. We distinguish between the following categories:

• Quantitative user study and human factors. Contribution focusing on a quantitative (e.g., statistical) analysis of user behavior and experience. For example, description and evaluation of an experiment.
• Qualitative user study and / or human factors. Contribution in which qualitative, contextual insight about user behavior and experience is central. For example, focus groups, interviews, or ethnographic studies.
• Design and artifact prototyping. Contribution in which the design or refinement of an interaction concept is central. For example, design fiction or naturalistic user enactment.
• Software, technology, and engineering. Contribution in which the technical development of a system is central. For example, studies that provide insight in fundamental (engineering) properties of touch- or audio-based interfaces in such a way that they provide an essential contribution for human-vehicle interaction as well as  future mobility studies more broadly.
• Research method. Contribution in which a novel research method or refinement of a research method is central. For example, development and validation of a new questionnaire or other critical instrument for measuring or analyzing human-vehicle interaction.
• Simulation and modeling. Contribution in which simulation or modeling of the human, the environment, or the world is central. For example, cognitive models of human attention, statistical models of likelihood of an accident, or simulations of automated driving scenarios.
• Theory. Contribution in which theoretical refinement is central, typically based on a systematic review. Such a theoretical contribution should be more than a summary of existing literature. For example, a review of literature on a specific topic to inform novel insights and perspectives or unknown knowledge gaps in the literature.
• Other. This category that can be used by researchers that think their work is not captured by any of the above contribution types. Please note: If your study fits two or more, we advise you to NOT pick “other”, but rather set the main contribution and the most important second contribution. For example, a paper could introduce a design concept that is also studied using a user study that has a quantitative and qualitative component.

Prepare and Submit

General formats and template information can be found here!

The papers track is meant for your best, original scientific work that is not published elsewhere. Please know that there are other tracks at AutomotiveUI if your work is

• not yet complete, but would benefit from feedback from the community (“Work in progress (WIP) submissions”);
• aimed at community forming (Workshop or Tutorial proposals);
• a video or a demonstration of an important development (“Video and Demo tracks”); or
• meant as feedback on ongoing doctoral (PhD) dissertation research (“Doctoral Colloquium (DC)”).

Paper Length

Authors are encouraged to submit a paper of length proportional to its contribution, with a minimum of 6 pages and maximum of 13 pages (single column, formatted using the provided template). References do not count towards this page limit. All other page elements do count. Shorter, more focused papers are encouraged and will be reviewed like any other paper. Papers whose lengths are incommensurate with their contributions will be rejected. Papers may be perceived as too long if they are repetitive or verbose, or too short if they omit important details, neglect relevant prior art, or tamper with formatting rules to save on page count.

Details about use of the templates.

Anonymization

Papers must be anonymized for blind review. We use a relaxed model that does not attempt to conceal all traces of identity from the body of the paper. However, you do need to completely remove identifying information from the title/header area of the paper, and ensure that it does not appear in the document’s meta-data. Citations to your own previous work should be treated with extra care, weighing up anonymisation and the ability for reviewers to take into account all previous research. We encourage authors to refer to their previous work in the third person. Further suppression of identity in the body of the paper is left to the authors’ discretion (e.g., identity could also be revealed through pictures of set-ups, campuses; such instances should be avoided).

Review Process

After you submit your paper, it will undergo a rigorous double-blind review process. Neither the reviewers will know the names of the authors, nor will the authors know the names of the reviewers. This process is coordinated by the Technical Program Chairs (TPCs). Submit your best work as the reviewing process is competitive. AutomotiveUI papers cover a variety of areas. However, regardless of area, all accepted papers score highly on contribution, innovation, and quality of thought and writing.

The reviewing process is structured as follows:

1. TPC Check: After the submission deadline, the Technical Program Chairs (TPC) check whether papers meet:
   • all formal requirements that are mentioned on this page (e.g., anonymized, appropriate length, formatted using the template) 
   • Rough parameters of the conference content and scope. This is mostly a check whether papers are not accidentally submitted to the wrong conference.
2. Desk-Rejects: Papers that do not meet the above requirements can be marked as a candidate for desk-rejection by a member of the TPC. The TPC will review these candidates. If all members of the TPC agree that it is a desk-reject, then the paper will get rejected without external reviews. It is expected that these occurrences are rare.
3. 1AC Assignment: Each remaining paper is assigned by the TPC to an Associate Chair, referred to as the 1AC, who coordinates the further review of the submission. They summarize the perspectives of all reviewers and provide the final advice on acceptance or rejection to the TPC. In the assignment, the TPC makes use of the keywords and other descriptors of the paper. We try to find the best match. The 1AC can see author identifying information to ensure that conflicts of interests are avoided when assigning reviewers. Note that ACs are senior members of the community with ample reviewing experience.
4. 2AC Assignment: Each paper is also assigned to a second Associate Chair, referred to as the 2AC. This 2AC writes an independent review without seeing any author identifying information (i.e., double-blind review).
5. Quick-Rejects: The 1AC and 2AC are asked to do another check whether papers meet criteria for a desk reject or quick reject. If that is the case, they pass this on to the Technical Program Chairs. If the TPCs unanimously agree, the paper will be rejected. Quick rejects are papers that meet the formal requirements, but that suffer from severe limitations that limit its ability to get accepted due to the competitive nature of the review process. We use the same criteria as outlined in this CHI 2020 blogpost to identify quick rejects:
   • Grossly insufficient detail to replicate the apparatus or the experiment
   • Grossly insufficient data to validate the analysis to support the claim 
   • Grossly insufficient literature review to contextualize and/or evaluate the proposed novelty/contribution to AutomotiveUI and related domains and communities in particular
   • Contribution to AutomotiveUI and related domains/communities is much too small given the length of the submitted paper 
   • Paper is very sloppy: lots of typos, missing references, formatting issues (including large white spaces)

AutomotiveUI 2023 is the third year where quick rejects are used, in response to the growing number of submissions and the stress that other factors (e.g., COVID pandemic) put on the reviewing process. The TPC will apply these rejections conservatively.

1. Inviting Reviewers: The 1AC and 2AC each invite 1 external reviewer. 
2. Reviews: The 2AC and the external reviewers write an external review and make a recommendation to the 1AC whether they think the paper should be accepted or rejected. The aim is that the 1AC is informed by 2-3 reviews.
3. 1AC Meta-Review & Recommendation: Once all reviews are in, the 1AC checks the reviews for quality and writes a meta-review in which they advise the TPC on acceptance or rejection of the paper. The 1AC can also decide to have further discussion among reviewers using an internal reviewer forum if scores deviate a lot.
4. TPC Decision: In the end, the TPC gets presented with a series of scores and qualitative reviews. These are used to rank all papers and decide which papers get rejected, or conditionally accepted. Conditional acceptance is the standard for an accepted paper, and indicates that each paper requires some changes based on the review process. All decisions are final.
5. Author Notification: These outcomes are communicated to the authors.

All accepted papers will be included in the conference proceedings and will be published in the ACM digital library.

AUTHORS TAKE NOTE: The official publication date is the date the proceedings are made available in the ACM Digital Library. This date may be up to two weeks prior to the first day of the conference. The official publication date may affect the deadline for any patent filings related to published work. For those rare conferences whose proceedings are published in the ACM Digital Library after the conference is over, the official publication date remains the first day of the conference.

Upon Acceptance of Your Submission

Full paper authors will be notified of (conditional) acceptance or rejection around the end of June, 2023. At a later time, authors of conditionally accepted submissions will receive instructions on how to prepare and submit the final formatted version and details on the presentation, live online discussion panel, and scheduling at the conference.

1. Upon acceptance, you will receive a (digital) ACM eRights form, which you are required to complete. You cannot change the title of your paper after you submitted the ACM eRights form.
2. After the ACM eRights form is submitted, ACM we will provide you with the rights information you must insert into your paper via email.
3. Follow the instructions to transform the submitted (and revised) manuscript into the final, formatted version. Detailed instructions along with a video tutorial will be sent to authors regarding this stage. The final formatted version will then be uploaded through the production system.

A member of the program committee and the publication chairs will check that your final output meets the requirements for publication and, if so, will finalize the acceptance. Authors are encouraged to submit their final revision earlier than the deadline, in case it is judged that the paper does not meet the committee requirements. If authors are unable to meet these requirements by the deadline, the program chairs will be notified and may be required to remove the paper from the program.

At least one author of accepted papers must register for the conference by the early registration deadline in order for the final version of the paper to be published in the conference proceedings.

Program Committee