Home » Analytics » Insights Into the Papers Track (Assisted) Desk Rejections

Insights Into the Papers Track (Assisted) Desk Rejections

By in Analytics, General on

By Sven Mayer, Guo Freeman, and Cristina Zaga.

In our previous blog post, we shared details about the papers track first round outcomes, where Desk Reject (DR) and Assisted Desk Reject (ADR) decisions were presented together with X1 (rejected after the first round review) as rejections. In this blog post, we provide further statistics about the DR/ADR decisions.

CHI 2026 DR and ADR Process

Besides the traditional desk reject (DR) policy, CHI 2026 introduced an assisted desk rejection (ADR) method, as outlined in the blog post “Revised CHI 2026 Papers Desk Reject Process.”

Overall DR and ADR Decisions

Figure 1 presents the percentage of DR, ADR, RR (Revise and Resubmit), and X1 (rejection in the first round of review) decisions  per subcommittee. Overall, all subcommittees made DR decisions, ranging from 1.4% (6 out of 436 submissions, Understanding People – Qualitative) to 17.9% (60 out of 335 submissions, Computational Interaction). All subcommittees also made ADR decisions, ranging from 1.1% (2 out of 189 submissions, Visualization) to 16.6% (84 out of 506 submissions, Health). The absolute numbers are shown in Figure 2.

The stacked bar chart shows the percentage breakdown of first-round decisions per CHI subcommittee, including Desk Reject (DR), Assisted Desk Reject (ADR), Reject after review (X1), and Revise and Resubmit (RR). Each bar represents one subcommittee and is normalized to 100 percent, with total submission counts shown above each bar. Across all subcommittees, X1 and RR decisions account for the largest proportions, while DR and ADR make up a smaller share. The relative balance between X1 and RR varies by subcommittee, with some areas showing higher RR proportions and others higher rejection rates.
Figure 1: Visualization of the percentage of DR, ADR, X1, and RR rate per subcommittee.
The stacked bar chart shows the absolute number of first-round decisions per CHI subcommittee, broken down into Desk Reject (DR), Assisted Desk Reject (ADR), Reject after review (X1), and Revise and Resubmit (RR). Each bar represents one subcommittee, with the total height indicating the total number of submissions. Across all subcommittees, X1 and RR decisions make up the largest portions of submissions, while DR and ADR account for smaller counts. Subcommittees such as Learning, Health, Design, and Understanding People have the highest overall submission volumes, whereas Developing Novel Devices and Visualization have the lowest. The chart highlights how decision counts scale with subcommittee size while maintaining similar decision patterns across areas.
Figure 2: Number of papers for the decisions DR, ADR, X1, and RR per subcommittee.

Desk Rejections Reasons

As outlined in the blog post Revised CHI 2026 Papers Desk Reject Process, CHI 2026 employed the following reasons for Desk Rejection:

  • DR Length: incorrect length judgments or unacceptable length justification. 
  • DR Anonymous: anonymization issues, e.g., revealing author identity or affiliation, referring to one’s own prior work in the wrong way (e.g., any references marked “anonymous” are grounds for desk rejection), see CHI Anonymization Policy.
  • DR Template: clearly out of format, e.g., double column, extended abstract. We can be lenient with minor format mismatches, such as incorrect fonts or citation formats.
  • DR Incomplete: missing major sections, etc., not a finished paper
  • DR Dual: failure to declare concurrent submissions, or the paper has been submitted in parallel to another conference.
  • DR Plagiarism: based on ACM plagiarism detection and/or deliberations from ACs.
  • DR Scope: out of scope of the conference – may be completely evident or not about HCI (more of a judgment call).
  • DR MISC: for anything else, and not written in English, unfinished/sloppy, unjustified/undisclosed LLM use.

Figure 3 presents the number of desk-rejected papers per subcommittee and per DR reason, and Figure 4 visualizes the percentage of desk-rejected papers per subcommittee and per DR reason; also see Table 1. While different subcommittees tended to desk reject submissions for various reasons, DR Scopewas the most frequently cited reason for DR in Computational Interaction, Privacy and Security, and Specific Applications Areas; and all DR decisions in Understanding People-Qualitative were DR Anonymous.

The stacked bar chart shows the number of desk rejections (DR) per CHI subcommittee, broken down by reason. Reasons include anonymous submission violations, dual submission, incomplete papers, length violations, miscellaneous issues, plagiarism, scope mismatch, and template violations. The total number of desk rejections varies by subcommittee, with Health, Computational Interaction, and Learning showing the highest counts. Across most subcommittees, scope and template violations account for a large share of desk rejections, while plagiarism and dual submission occur less frequently. The chart highlights differences in the distribution of desk rejection reasons across subcommittees.
Figure 3: Number of Desk Rejected papers per subcommittee and per reason.
The stacked bar chart shows the percentage distribution of desk rejection (DR) reasons per CHI subcommittee. Each bar represents one subcommittee and is normalized to 100 percent, with the total number of desk rejections shown above each bar. Desk rejection reasons include anonymous submission violations, dual submission, incomplete papers, length violations, miscellaneous issues, plagiarism, scope mismatch, and template violations. The dominant reasons vary by subcommittee, but anonymous, scope, and template violations account for the largest shares overall. The chart highlights how the relative composition of desk rejection reasons differs across subcommittees, even when total desk rejection counts vary.
Figure 4: Percentage of Desk Rejected papers per subcommittee and per reason.
Total [N]Anonymous [%]Dual [%]Incomplete [%]Length [%]MISC [%]Plagiarism [%]Scope [%]Template [%]
Accessibility1844.40.05.60.022.20.011.116.7
Blending Interaction1936.80.010.510.521.10.015.85.3
Computational Interaction605.00.01.70.08.30.066.718.3
Critical Computing3540.00.025.70.011.40.014.38.6
Design4037.50.017.52.517.55.05.015.0
Developing Novel Devices333.30.00.00.00.00.00.066.7
Games and Play1947.40.00.010.521.10.010.510.5
Health7146.511.32.80.09.90.026.82.8
Interacting with Devices2050.010.00.010.010.00.010.010.0
Interaction Beyond the Individual1833.30.016.75.60.00.011.133.3
Learning4548.90.00.02.28.92.211.126.7
Privacy and Security200.00.00.00.010.05.065.020.0
Specific Applications Areas2025.00.00.00.010.00.065.00.0
Understanding People (Mixed)1637.50.06.212.512.50.00.031.2
Understanding People (Qual)6100.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0
Understanding People (Quant)3545.70.00.00.022.90.020.011.4
User Experience and Usability3148.40.06.53.222.60.00.019.4
Visualization955.60.00.022.20.00.022.20.0

Assisted Desk Rejections Reasons

As outlined in the blog post Revised CHI 2026 Papers Desk Reject Process, CHI 2026 employs the following reasons for ADR:

  • ADR-Context: Grossly insufficient literature review to contextualize the contribution. 
  • ADR-Contribution: A disproportionately small HCI contribution given the paper length.
  • ADR-Data: Grossly insufficient data to support claims.
  • ADR-Method: Grossly insufficient methodological detail, conceptual clarity, or research transparency.

Figure 5 presents the number of assisted desk rejected papers per subcommittee and per ADR reason, and Figure 6 visualizes the percentage of assisted desk rejected papers per subcommittee and per ADR reason. While different subcommittees tended to make ADR decisions for various reasons, ADR-Context was the most frequently cited reason for ADR in almost all subcommittees, as shown in Table 2. ADR-Contribution was also one of the more frequently cited ADR reasons.

The stacked bar chart shows the absolute number of Assisted Desk Reject (ADR) decisions per CHI subcommittee, broken down by reason. ADR reasons include context mismatch, insufficient contribution, data issues, and methodological issues. The number of ADRs varies across subcommittees, with Health and Learning showing the highest counts, followed by Interaction Beyond the Individual and Understanding People (Qualitative). Across most subcommittees, context and contribution issues account for the largest share of ADRs, while data and method-related reasons occur less frequently. The chart highlights how the volume and composition of ADR reasons differ across subcommittees.
Figure 5: Number of Assisted Desk Rejected papers per subcommittee and per reason.
The stacked bar chart shows the percentage distribution of Assisted Desk Reject (ADR) reasons per CHI subcommittee. Each bar represents one subcommittee and is normalized to 100 percent, with the total number of ADR cases shown above each bar. ADR reasons include context mismatch, insufficient contribution, data issues, and methodological issues. Across most subcommittees, context and contribution issues account for the largest proportions of ADR decisions, while data and method-related reasons make up smaller shares. The chart highlights how the relative composition of ADR reasons varies across subcommittees, even when the total number of ADR cases differs substantially.
Figure 6: Percentage of Assisted Desk Rejected papers per subcommittee and per reason.
Total [N]Context [%]Contribution [%]Data [%]Method [%]
Accessibility1457.128.614.30.0
Blending Interaction1553.313.36.726.7
Computational Interaction1866.722.25.65.6
Critical Computing3138.738.73.219.4
Design1936.815.80.047.4
Developing Novel Devices560.040.00.00.0
Games and Play3158.116.10.025.8
Health8447.644.01.27.1
Interacting with Devices1250.050.00.00.0
Interaction Beyond the Individual3740.545.90.013.5
Learning8239.040.27.313.4
Privacy and Security1435.728.621.414.3
Specific Applications Areas2955.227.66.910.3
Understanding People (Mixed)1580.013.30.06.7
Understanding People (Qual)358.685.72.92.9
Understanding People (Quant)2781.514.80.03.7
User Experience and Usability2268.227.30.04.5
Visualization250.00.00.050.0