EN FR

Peer review and revision

Institution

Submitting the paper

Choosing the right venue

Submitting a paper begins with choosing the venue (conference or journal). This choice depends on several factors:

  • The nature of the results: Preliminary or exploratory results are better suited to conferences; consolidated and in-depth results to journals.
  • Timing: Conferences have fixed deadlines (call for papers); journals accept submissions on a rolling basis.
  • Target audience: Each venue has its own community, expectations, and format (pictorial, traditional article, research note).
  • Prestige and scope: Consult rankings (CORE for computer science conferences, Scimago for journals) to assess scope.

In design research, the main conferences are DIS, CHI, DRS, E&PDE, IASDR. The main journals are Design Studies, Design Issues, She Ji, International Journal of Design, CoDesign, Sciences du Design.

Preparing the submission

Before submitting:

  • Check the author guidelines: Format, number of pages, anonymity (double-blind review), templates.
  • Ensure the paper is complete: Clear introduction, detailed method, precise results, open discussion.
  • Have it reviewed by peers: Colleagues, co-authors, or lab members before submission.
  • Write a submission letter (if required): Briefly present the paper and its relevance to the venue.

Understanding the process

Most venues use peer review:

  1. The submitter sends the paper.
  2. The editor or chair assigns 2 to 4 reviewers.
  3. The reviewers evaluate the paper against predefined criteria.
  4. The editor makes a decision: accept, minor revisions, major revisions, reject.

The process typically takes 2 to 6 months for conferences, 3 to 12 months for journals.

Peer review

What reviewers evaluate

Reviewers generally assess:

  • Relevance: Does the paper match the scope of the venue?
  • Originality: Does it offer a new contribution?
  • Rigor: Is the method sound? Are the results well supported?
  • Clarity: Is the writing understandable? Are the figures and tables clear?
  • Significance: Is the contribution meaningful to the community?

Types of decisions

  • Accept: Rare on the first submission. The paper is accepted as-is or with minor corrections.
  • Minor revisions: Formatting corrections, clarifications, additional references. Generally accepted if handled well.
  • Major revisions: Substantial changes required (new analysis, rewording, additional experiments). Possible but demanding.
  • Reject: The paper is not accepted. It may be submitted elsewhere after revision.

Handling feedback

Receiving criticism can be difficult, especially for early-career researchers. Some advice:

  • Wait before reacting: Read the reviews, then take some time (a few days) before starting to respond.
  • Distinguish substance from form: Some critiques are misunderstandings (to be clarified), others are valid (to be addressed).
  • Don’t take it personally: The critiques are about the work, not about you.
  • Identify common themes: If multiple reviewers raise the same issue, it is likely something that needs to be addressed.

Revisions

Responding to reviewers

The response letter is a crucial document. It should:

  • Thank the reviewers for their time and comments.
  • Respond point by point to each comment, quoting the comment then the response.
  • Indicate the changes made (or explain why a change was not made).
  • Be respectful and professional, even if the critiques are harsh.

Example structure:

Reviewer 1, comment 1: "The method lacks details on participant recruitment."
Response: "We have added a Section 3.2 detailing the recruitment procedure, pp. 7-8."

Making the revisions

  • Follow a logical order: Start with major changes (structure, analyses), then minor ones (text, figures).
  • Mark the changes: Use track changes mode or highlight the modified passages.
  • Check consistency: Ensure the changes do not create inconsistencies in the rest of the text.

Resubmitting

Once the revisions are complete:

  • Submit the new version of the paper.
  • Submit the response to reviewers.
  • Submit a marked-up version of the changes (if requested).

The editor will review the changes and make a new decision. If the revisions are satisfactory, the paper is accepted. Otherwise, further revisions may be requested, or the paper may be rejected.

Practical advice

  • Start early: Do not wait until the last minute to submit. Allow time for revisions.
  • Learn from the process: Every submission, even if rejected, is an opportunity to improve your work and your understanding of research.
  • Build a network: Attend conferences, discuss with other researchers, and get informal feedback before submitting.
  • Persevere: Rejection is part of the process. Most accepted papers have been rejected at least once before.
Table of Content