CHI 2025 – Papers track, post-PC outcomes report
Author: Himanshu Verma (Analytics Chair)
Date: 2025-02-26
NB — The numbers might not always work out here, there are missing data from the analyses due to conflicts.
This blog post covers outcomes from the CHI 2025 Program Committee (PC) meeting, which took place from the 13-15th January 2025.
After the first round of reviews, 1,969 submissions were invited to submit revisions. Of these invited submissions, 1,933 were resubmitted. External reviewers and Associate Chairs (ACs) asynchronously reviewed and discussed these revised submissions and made individual binary accept/reject decisions. Submissions were then discussed in subcommittees at the PC meeting, where final accept/reject decisions were made. Please refer to the previous blog post for an analysis of the submissions after the first round of reviews.
Overall Acceptance Rates
Of the initial 5,014 completed submissions, the CHI 2025 Program Committee has conditionally accepted 1,249 submissions. The overall acceptance rate for the Papers track was 24.9% of completed submissions. Of the submissions that were revised and resubmitted, 64.6% were accepted.
Of the initial completed submissions (including desk-rejected papers), the overall acceptance rate for “short” submissions (under 5,000 words) was 7.8% (37 out of 473 completed submissions). The overall acceptance rate was 27.0% (1,198 out of 4,444 completed submissions) for “standard” submissions (between 5,000 and 12,000 words). In addition, there was an overall acceptance rate of 22.6% (14 out of 62 completed submissions) for “excessively long” submissions (over 12,000 words).
Acceptance Rates By Subcommittee
Submissions to the CHI Papers track are made to one of eighteen subcommittees. These subcommittees have a topic focus (e.g., Health, Design, User Experience). In our previous blog post, we discussed submission rates and the distribution of first-round rejections (X1) and revise and resubmits (RR). The final range of acceptance rates were between 18.4% (Games & Play) and 32% (Specific Application Areas). Figure 1 shows the acceptance rates for each subcommittee.
Figure 1: Acceptance rates by subcommittee for CHI 2025 papers.
If we further examine the acceptance rates across the subcommittees, we see that the Games & Play subcommittee had the lowest acceptance rate of 18.4%, followed by User Experience (19%) and Computational Interaction (21%). Furthermore, Accessibility (30.8%), Critical Computing (31.1%), and Specific Application Areas (32%) had the highest acceptance rates. Table 1 provides an overview of the number of submissions and the respective acceptance rates for the various subcommittees.
| Primary Subcommittee | # Accepted Submissions | # Submissions | % Acceptance |
|---|---|---|---|
| Games & Play | 30 | 163 | 18.4 |
| User Experience | 62 | 326 | 19.0 |
| Computational Interaction | 61 | 291 | 21.0 |
| Design | 80 | 372 | 21.5 |
| Health | 80 | 351 | 22.8 |
| Understanding People (Mixed) | 62 | 256 | 24.2 |
| Understanding People (Quant) | 78 | 318 | 24.5 |
| Visualization | 46 | 188 | 24.5 |
| Interacting with Devices | 81 | 328 | 24.7 |
| Learning | 85 | 343 | 24.8 |
| Interaction Beyond the Individual | 47 | 184 | 25.5 |
| Understanding People (Qual) | 85 | 324 | 26.2 |
| Privacy | 62 | 234 | 26.5 |
| Blending Interaction | 90 | 331 | 27.2 |
| Developing Novel Devices | 34 | 122 | 27.9 |
| Accessibility | 100 | 325 | 30.8 |
| Critical Computing | 83 | 267 | 31.1 |
| Specific Applications | 82 | 256 | 32.0 |
Next, considering the completed revised and resubmitted papers, Figure 2 shows the number of submissions in each subcommittee that were either conditionally accepted (A2) or rejected (X2).
Figure 2: Number of revised and resubmitted submissions in each subcommittee with decision for CHI 2025.
Figure 3 and Table 2 below show the analysis for the revised and resubmitted (R&R) articles along with the decision, i.e., conditional acceptance (A2) and rejection (X2), across the different subcommittees. The lowest acceptance rates for R&R were within the Games & Play (51.7%), Privacy (58.5%), and User Experience (58.5%) subcommittees. However, the highest acceptance rates for R&R were within the Visualization (70.8%), Understanding People (Qualitative) (71.4%), and Specific Application Areas (77.4%) subcommittees.
Figure 3: Acceptance rates by subcommittee when considering only revised and resubmitted papers for CHI 2025.
| Primary Subcommittee | # Conditional Accepts | # Rejects | % Acceptance |
|---|---|---|---|
| Games & Play | 30 | 28 | 51.72 |
| Privacy | 62 | 44 | 58.49 |
| User Experience | 62 | 44 | 58.49 |
| Developing Novel Devices | 34 | 23 | 59.65 |
| Design | 80 | 53 | 60.15 |
| Interacting with Devices | 81 | 53 | 60.45 |
| Blending Interaction | 90 | 53 | 62.94 |
| Understanding People (Quant) | 78 | 44 | 63.93 |
| Learning | 85 | 47 | 64.39 |
| Accessibility | 100 | 51 | 66.23 |
| Computational Interaction | 61 | 31 | 66.30 |
| Understanding People (Mixed) | 63 | 31 | 67.02 |
| Health | 80 | 39 | 67.23 |
| Interaction Beyond the Individual | 47 | 21 | 69.12 |
| Critical Computing | 83 | 36 | 69.75 |
| Visualization | 46 | 19 | 70.77 |
| Understanding People (Qual) | 85 | 34 | 71.43 |
| Specific Applications | 82 | 24 | 77.36 |
Reviewer Recommendations
Each paper in the CHI Papers track receives recommendations from reviewers (including 1AC, 2AC, and external reviewers). Although these recommendations may resemble scores, they are not actually scores. As a result, we cannot analyze the mean scores for different submissions. However, we can examine the mix of recommendations received for each submission and visualize how they correlate with the final decision. In particular, do all accepted papers have a “clean sweep” of recommendations for acceptance? Or, what is the mix of recommendations for rejected submissions? Figure 4 visualizes these patterns for revised and resubmitted (R&R) submissions that received final recommendations—as either accept or reject—from four reviewers.
Figure 4: Cumulative reviewer recommendations for papers invited to revise and resubmit to CHI 2025 that received four recommendations.
Not all revised and resubmitted papers received four recommendations from four reviewers (1AC, 2AC, and two external reviewers), including (a) 11 submissions that received two final recommendations, (b) 135 submissions that received three final recommendations, (c) 137 submissions that received five final recommendations, and (d) 2 submissions that received six final recommendations. Figure 5 illustrates the distribution of reviewer recommendations for papers that received five recommendations for the revised and resubmitted papers. These submissions correspond to cases where a 3AC was brought in to assist in decision making or when a conflict arose. Moreover, Table 3 highlights submissions (which were revised and resubmitted) that did not receive four reviewer recommendations.
Figure 5: Cumulative reviewer recommendations for papers invited to revise and resubmit to CHI 2025 that received five recommendations. These submissions correspond to cases where a 3AC was brought in to assist in decision making or when a conflict arose.
| Decision | # Accept Recommendations | # Reject Recommendations | Total # Recommendations | # Submissions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Accept | 3 | 0 | 3 | 94 |
| Reject | 2 | 3 | 5 | 50 |
| Reject | 1 | 4 | 5 | 33 |
| Reject | 0 | 3 | 3 | 29 |
| Accept | 4 | 1 | 5 | 23 |
| Reject | 0 | 5 | 5 | 13 |
| Accept | 3 | 2 | 5 | 9 |
| Accept | 2 | 1 | 3 | 8 |
| Accept | 2 | 0 | 2 | 7 |
| Accept | 5 | 0 | 5 | 7 |
| Reject | 0 | 2 | 2 | 4 |
| Reject | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 |
| Reject | 3 | 2 | 5 | 2 |
| Reject | 0 | 6 | 6 | 1 |
| Reject | 3 | 3 | 6 | 1 |
We Need Your Help Planning Accessibility Support for CHI 2025
We hope you’re getting excited about CHI 2025 in Yokohama! We organizers are working hard to make the conference as inclusive as possible.
In this blog post, we want to ask for your help with planning, if you might attend the conference and would require accessibility support.
Planning accessibility support for the conference is tricky. It requires in-advance preparation, particularly when it comes to hiring necessary services.
So, we would like to connect with potential conference attendees who may need accessibility support. While we understand that many of you cannot confirm whether you will attend or not until you receive your submission results, we encourage early communication about your potential needs. Even if you’re not completely certain about attending, knowing that you’re considering it helps us plan more effectively.
Please contact us at accessibility@chi2025.acm.org to discuss your accessibility requirements. And to ensure we can accommodate your needs, we ask that all accessibility requests be submitted by February 28th, 2025.
Thanks for taking the time to read this! Your early heads-up helps us a lot! Looking forward to communicating with you!
Special Recognition for Sustainable Practices
The CHI’25 sustainability committee is excited to announce the return of the Special Recognition for papers that take exceptional measures toward sustainable research practices. This initiative aims to draw attention to sustainable research and celebrate authors’ dedication to sustainability. This honor is open to any project that has taken steps to be more sustainable–not only projects that directly address sustainable topics. Thus, we will again consider two tracks for this recognition: i) research with potential for sustainable impact and ii) research teams with inspirational research practices.
There are many creative ways that HCI researchers could consider to make their work more sustainable and potentially earn a Special Recognition for Sustainable Practices, including:
- Offsetting carbon costs (e.g., of training machine learning models)
- Hosting a no-waste workshop
- Purchasing recycled materials
- Minimizing project-related travel (e.g., holding hybrid and virtual meetings)
- Incorporating community leaders in project funding
- Advocating for sustainable policy
- Public outreach or education on sustainable topics or practices
- Reducing electronic waste (e.g., through sustainable purchasing practices, reusing and recycling parts)
Any of these actions or similar could earn your project a Special Recognition for Sustainable Practices. We hope to hear many other creative ideas! Read more about last year’s winners here: https://chi2024.acm.org/2024/05/08/special-recognition-for-sustainable-practices-winners-runners-up/
How to Apply
The submission portal in PCS will include a new field where authors of accepted papers can describe steps to make their work/projects more sustainable. In 2-3 paragraphs (300 words or less), tell us what actions you’ve taken to make your project more sustainable, your reasoning for taking those actions, and what impact you’ve seen. Note: What you enter there is separate from the review process. Additionally, this is a relatively new effort to promote sustainability; hence, we are still trying things out, and you’re welcome to submit comments or feedback to sustainability@chi2025.acm.org.
Special recognitions will be announced before the first day of the conference on April 26th. Papers receiving special recognition will be highlighted on Twitter/X and mentioned in the closing keynote during the conference. A badge will also appear in the conference program.
CHI 2025 — Papers Track, post-review report (Round 1)
NB — The numbers might not always work out here, there are missing data from the analyses due to conflicts.
This blog post covers how many papers were submitted to CHI 2025 and the outcomes of the first round of reviewing for the CHI 2025 Papers track and how many papers were entered into the second round of reviewing in December 2024. This short post provides analyses that might help to contextualise review recommendations across submissions. This post focuses mostly on Round 1 outcomes and we will provide further statistics about Round 2 and post-PC meeting discussions after the PC meeting in January 2025.
Increase in Submissions and Desk Rejections
Overall, we saw an increase in submissions to CHI 2025’s Papers track. This year we received 5,014
complete submissions. This is a significant increase compared to 2024 (4,046, increase of 24%), 2023 (3,182, increase of 58%), and 2022 (2,579, increase of 94%).
Of the completed submissions, 495 (9.9%) were desk rejected for various reasons ranging from non-compliance with anonymization policy, context, use of wrong template, scope, etc. The table below illustrates the number of submissions that were desk rejected for various reasons.
| Reason for Desk Rejection | # Submissions |
|---|---|
| Context | 187 |
| Anonymization | 134 |
| Template | 86 |
| Scope | 34 |
| Incomplete Submission | 19 |
| Miscellaneous | 16 |
| Length | 9 |
| Incomplete Paper | 5 |
| Plagiarism | 5 |
Subcommittee Load
Submissions to the CHI Papers track are made to one of eighteen subcommittees. These subcommittees have a topic focus (e.g., Health, Design, User Experience). The following chart summarizes
the number of submissions made to the various subcommittees in 2025.
Although the number of completed submissions to each subcommittee increased in 2025 compared to 2024, we saw a slight decrease of 3% in submissions to the “Developing Novel Devices: Hardware, Materials, and Fabrication” subcommittee. The range of increases in submissions across the subcommittees varied from an 8% increase in “Interaction Beyond the Individual” to a 47% increase in “Learning, Education, and Families”. Other subcommittees with significant increases in submissions include “Understanding People – Statistical and Quantitative Methods” (42%), “Design” (42%), “Critical Computing, Sustainability, and Social Justice” (39%), “Understanding People – Qualitative Methods” (36%), and “Understanding People – Mixed and Alternative Methods” (28%). The following chart visualizes the number of submissions to the various subcommittees in 2024 and 2025.
The following table provides a summary of the change in submissions to the various subcommittees in 2024 and 2025.
| Primary Subcommittee | 2024 | 2025 | % Change |
|---|---|---|---|
| Accessibility | 273 | 331 | 21.25 |
| Blending Interaction | 262 | 333 | 27.1 |
| Computational Interaction | 260 | 297 | 14.23 |
| Critical Computing | 194 | 270 | 39.18 |
| Design | 264 | 374 | 41.67 |
| Developing Novel Devices | 126 | 122 | -3.17 |
| Games and Play | 146 | 163 | 11.64 |
| Health | 285 | 352 | 23.51 |
| Interacting with Devices | 276 | 330 | 19.57 |
| Interaction Beyond the Individual | 172 | 186 | 8.14 |
| Learning | 234 | 345 | 47.44 |
| Privacy | 190 | 234 | 23.16 |
| Specific Applications | 218 | 257 | 17.89 |
| Understanding People (Mixed) | 201 | 258 | 28.36 |
| Understanding People (Qual) | 239 | 326 | 36.4 |
| Understanding People (Quant) | 224 | 319 | 42.41 |
| User Experience | 287 | 329 | 14.63 |
| Visualization | 158 | 188 | 18.99 |
Review Scales
Before we go into the outcomes, here is a reminder of the scales that have been used during the CHI 2025 review process. Reviewers and ACs provide a recommendation (recommendation category out of 5 choices) and can further contextualize their recommendation based on originality, significance, and research quality (each a 5 point ordinal scale from Very Low, Low, Medium, High and Very High). However, the decision to qualify for a Revise and Resubmit depends on whether one of the ACs (1AC or 2AC) recommends a Revise and Resubmit.
| Short Name | Name On Review Form | Threshold for Revise & Resubmit |
|---|---|---|
| A | I recommend Accept with Minor Revisions | Yes |
| ARR | I can go with either Accept with Minor Revisions or Revise and Resubmit |
Yes |
| RR | I recommend Revise and Resubmit | Yes |
| RRX | I can go with either Reject or Revise and Resubmit | No |
| X | I recommend Reject | No |
Decision (After Round 1 Review)
Of all the completed submissions, including the Desk Rejects (DR), for 2025, 2,545 (50.8%) papers were Rejected (X1) after the first round of review, and 1,969 (39.3%) were invited to the Revise & Resubmit (RR) round. In comparison, in 2024, after the first round of review, 2,165 (54%) papers were Rejected (X1) and 1,620 (40.4%) were invited to Revise & Resubmit (RR) among the set of completed submissions.
The following chart visualizes the number of submissions that were Rejected in the first round (X1) and the number that were invited to Revise & Resubmit (RR) for 2024 and 2025, after removing all the desk rejections.
The following chart visualizes the number of submissions that were Rejected in the first round (X1) and the number that were invited to Revise & Resubmit (RR) only for 2025. If we look at the percentage of RRs in each of the subcommittees, we see that the subcommittees of “Visualization” (35%), “Computational Interaction” (39%), and “User Experience and Usability” (39%) were more selective with a lower percentage of RRs. On the other hand, the subcommittees of “Developing Novel Devices: Hardware, Materials, and Fabrication” (49%), “Specific Application Areas” (50%), and “Critical Computing, Sustainability, and Social Justice” (50%) had a higher proportion of RRs among their reviewed submissions.
The following table provides a summary of the review decisions by the various subcommittees for the 2025 reviewed papers.
| Primary Subcommittee | # Rejected | # Moving To RR | % Moving To RR |
|---|---|---|---|
| Accessibility | 166 | 157 | 48.61 |
| Blending Interaction | 168 | 145 | 46.33 |
| Computational Interaction | 156 | 99 | 38.82 |
| Critical Computing | 121 | 122 | 50.21 |
| Design | 206 | 136 | 39.77 |
| Developing Novel Devices | 59 | 57 | 49.14 |
| Games and Play | 72 | 59 | 45.04 |
| Health | 165 | 120 | 42.11 |
| Interacting with Devices | 172 | 137 | 44.34 |
| Interaction Beyond the Individual | 97 | 70 | 41.92 |
| Learning | 156 | 135 | 46.39 |
| Privacy | 123 | 106 | 46.29 |
| Specific Applications | 108 | 107 | 49.77 |
| Understanding People (Mixed) | 140 | 96 | 40.68 |
| Understanding People (Qual) | 187 | 123 | 39.68 |
| Understanding People (Quant) | 162 | 125 | 43.55 |
| User Experience | 169 | 110 | 39.43 |
| Visualization | 118 | 65 | 35.52 |
Overview Review Scores
The following chart shows a histogram of the submissions given the overall score after the first round of reviews and the corresponding decision.
Outcomes Based on Submission Length
As with CHI 2024, this year’s Papers track will continue with different submission length categories. Submitted papers are divided into three categories: Short (under 5,000 words), Standard (between 5,000 and 12,000 words; averaging 7,000-8,000 words), and Excessive (over 12,000 words). The table below provides a summary of submissions by type, detailing the number of papers submitted and their outcomes. For simplicity, this table provides a summary of reviewed papers (excluding desk rejections) that received either a “Revise & Resubmit” or “Reject” decision.
| Paper Length | # Moving To RR | # Rejected | % Moving To RR |
|---|---|---|---|
| Short | 76 | 276 | 21.59 |
| Standard | 1868 | 2240 | 45.47 |
| Excessive | 25 | 29 | 46.3 |
CHI 2025 Registration is Now Open!
We’re excited to announce that registration for CHI 2025 is now open!
You can register here: https://cvent.me/g5mx2w.
The early registration deadline is Saturday, April 5th, 2025 EOD AOE (Anywhere On Earth).
We have – as in previous years – different pricing by the country of your current home address. See the list of countries in each category at the end of this post. We also offer opportunities for onsite (in-person), as well as online only (virtual) participation. An overview of all options is given on the Registration Rates and Information page here: https://cvent.me/Z5neeL?RefId=chi2025regrates.
Information about visa applications is here: https://chi2025.acm.org/travel/visa/
The list of conference hotels and further information about childcare, travel, and the venue will be online shortly.
Categories (country list)
Category C
All countries not listed in category H or I.
Category H
- Albania
- Argentina
- Armenia
- Azerbaijan
- Belarus
- Belize
- Bosnia
- Botswana
- Brazil
- Bulgaria
- China
- Colombia
- Costa Rica
- Cuba
- Dominica
- Dominican Republic
- Ecuador
- El Salvador
- Equatorial Guinea
- Fiji
- Gabon
- Georgia
- Grenada
- Guatemala
- Indonesia
- Iraq
- Jamaica
- Kazakhstan
- Kosovo
- Libya
- North Macedonia
- Malaysia
- Maldives
- Marshall Islands
- Mauritius
- Mexico
- Montenegro
- Namibia
- Palau
- Palestine
- Paraguay
- Peru
- Republic Moldova
- Russian Federation
- Saint Lucia
- Serbia
- South Africa
- St. Vincent
- Suriname
- Thailand
- Tonga
- Turkey
- Turkmenistan
- Tuvalu
- Venezuela
Category I
- Afghanistan
- Algeria
- Angola
- Bangladesh
- Benin
- Bhutan
- Bolivia
- Burkina Faso
- Burundi
- C African Rp
- Cambodia
- Cameroon
- Cape Verde
- Chad
- Comoros
- Congo
- Congo, Democratic Republic
- Djibouti
- Egypt
- Eritrea
- Eswatini
- Ethiopia
- Federal State of Micronesia
- Gambia
- Ghana
- Guinea
- Guinea-Bissau
- Haiti
- Honduras
- India
- Iran
- Ivory Coast
- Jordan
- Kenya
- Kiribati
- Kyrgyzstan
- Lebanon
- Lesotho
- Liberia
- Madagascar
- Malawi
- Mali
- Mauritania
- Mongolia
- Morocco
- Mozambique
- Myanmar
- Nepal
- Nicaragua
- Niger
- Nigeria
- North Korea
- Pakistan
- Papua New Guinea
- People’s Dem. Republic of Lao
- Philippines
- Rwanda
- Samoa
- Sao Tome and Principe
- Senegal
- Sierra Leone
- Sri Lanka
- Solomon Isl
- Somalia
- South Sudan
- Sudan
- Syria
- Tadzhikistan
- Tanzania
- Timor-Leste
- Togo
- Tunisia
- Uganda
- Ukraine
- Uzbekistan
- Vanuatu
- Viet Nam
- Yemen
- Zambia
- Zimbabwe
