If you notice any problems meeting the review deadline or with your assignments, or if you have any questions about EasyChair, please contact us as soon as possible.

Please note that we assign a small number of community member and non-expert reviews in order to promote interdisciplinarity, diversity, and community engagement.

Scope of Submissions

CHR accepts papers without considering their perceived significance. This means we welcome:

• Papers with negative or inconclusive results
• Small case studies
• Prototypes and proofs of concept

See the full Call for Papers here

Writing a Review

Reviews should be written clearly and use constructive language. Make sure your review:

• Respects the authors and their effort
• Helps the authors improve their work for the camera-ready version or future submissions

Key Review Elements

Contribution

Clearly identify the core contribution of the paper:

• How it advances or benefits the community
• Where it could make an impact
• Interesting follow-up research questions
• Relevance to Humanities-related research

Strengths

Describe what the paper does well, such as:

• Phrasing of research questions or hypotheses
• Novel and sound methodology
• Experimental setup and execution
• Comparison with previous work
• Interesting results
• Potential for impact on the community
• Social and ethical considerations

Weaknesses

Point out weaknesses and suggest how they can be addressed:

• Be specific and constructive
• Offer clear, actionable suggestions
• Support interdisciplinary knowledge exchange

Additional Guidelines

• If the paper violates format guidelines, contact the CHR2025 committee. Do not lower your evaluation based on formatting issues.
• Use numerical scoring to take a clear stand, unless you are truly ambivalent.
• Reviews can be edited anytime before the review deadline.
• Papers sent for review are confidential and should not be shared or discussed outside the peer review process.
• Do not upload papers to third-party commercial tools, as this breaches confidentiality and constitutes peer review misconduct.