EICS PACM Information

July 2017


EICS is changing its review process for full papers to use the Proceedings of the ACM (PACM) model. The review process will take place four times annually, and accepted papers will be published in issues of PACM on Human-Computer Interaction. This page describes the process and upcoming deadlines.

If you have any questions, please contact jeff@jeffreynichols.com.

Upcoming Deadlines

The Q3 round of PACM EICS reviewing will start in July and wrap up in early-mid September.  The due dates for the various phases of the process are as follows:

Submissions: July 24, 2017

Editorial Board bidding: July 26

Editorial Board assignments: July 28

Reviewer assignments: August 2

Reviews: August 23

Meta-Reviews and Discussion (Reviews sent out for rebuttal): August 30

Rebuttals for Authors: September 5

Editorial Board Meeting (virtual): September 7

Final Decisions: September 11, 2017

Papers accepted during this iteration are not required to present at EICS 2018, though we hope they will choose to do so!

Future Iterations

The structure of the EICS model will be based on the normal conference review process, except iterated multiple times per year. This is contrast to a pure journal model, where submissions would be accepted at all times of the year and each paper has its own review process schedule.  This means that each iteration of the review process starts at a specific time, all papers (either being new submissions or revisions of previously submitted papers) submitted by the deadline are reviewed simultaneously, and decisions on all papers are made and announced at the same time. The benefit of this structured iteration is that reviewing effort can be planned for by editorial board members and reviewers in advance of submissions arriving, and the progress of papers through the process is easier to track because all papers have the same set of deadlines. This will also make sure the revision process is quick and predictable for authors.

The exact dates for future iterations are tentative. Final dates will be announced for the next iteration at or before the conclusion of the preceding iteration. Expected dates are:

You will note that the iterations are not regularly spaced throughout the year, but arranged to fit within several constraints:

Note that there is no special process for the conference full papers separate from the PACM process. All full papers will be submitted via PACM. All other EICS conference venues, such as LBR papers, will have their own conference-specific processes.


Submission to EICS PACM should present original and mature research work. High-quality, elaborated case studies and practice reports with generalizable findings will also be considered.

Papers should be written in the ACM small format (the linked page may say that PACMHCI uses the large format, but it is incorrect).

There are no length restrictions on papers, nor any limit to the number of references that may be included.

Papers should be anonymized. Primarily, this means that submissions must remove all author and institutional information from the title and header area of the first page of the paper. Author information should also be removed from submitted supplementary materials, in particular, videos. Submissions that do not do so may be rejected without review.

Furthermore, all references must remain intact. If you previously published a paper and your current submission builds on that work, the complete reference with author's name must appear in the references. Authors must refer to their previous work in the third person (e.g., “We build on prior work by Smith et al. [X] but generalize their algorithm to new settings.”) and avoid blank references (e.g., “12. REMOVED FOR REVIEWING”). Further suppression of identity in the body of the paper (for example, in an Acknowledgements section), while encouraged, is left to the authors’ discretion.

Submit your papers at http://new.precisionconference.com/.


Each round of reviewing starts with a submission deadline and proceeds similarly to the typical conference process.  The following is a template for the process:

A graphical description of the process is available here


Reviewing Details

We are in the process of appointing an Editorial Board for PACM EICS, equivalent to the Senior Program Committee used for previous conferences, except serving for more than just one cycle.  Editorial Board members will serve as both reviewers and managers of the review process, similar in form to the primary and secondary model used by previous EICS conference review processes.

The primary Editorial Board member for a paper will manage the review process for each paper, inviting 2 reviewers, ensuring their reviews are submitted, leading any discussion, writing a meta-review, and working with their secondary Board member to reach a decision for presentation at the virtual editorial board meeting.

The secondary Editorial Board member will write a regular review of the paper at the same time as the external reviewers are writing reviews.

All reviewing will be essentially double-blind, with papers anonymized and reviewer identities kept confidential.  Similar to the previous conference process, the Editorial Board member serving as primary will be aware of the identities of both authors and reviewers.

An important aspect of the journal reviewing process is good communication between the authors and the Editorial Board member handling the paper. In journals such as TOCHI, the identity of the Editorial Board member is revealed from nearly the beginning, and authors can communicate with their Board member freely. For EICS PACM, the primary Editorial Board member will be anonymous to the authors by default, and anonymous communication between the parties will be enabled through the PCS 2.0 review system.  At the primary Editorial Board member’s discretion, he or she may reveal their identity to the authors for the purposes of discussion, especially for papers requiring revision and between review cycles. (This is similar to how shepherding works for many conferences using PCS today)

A key aspect to the review process is that continuity must be maintained for each paper across multiple deadlines. A revision to a previous submission should be handled by the same Editorial Board members and as many of the same reviewers as possible.

We will not start with a pre-recruited reviewer pool, as has been used for the EICS 2016 and 2017 processes, but we may go back to this as the reviewing needs for the PACM process become clearer. Our reasoning is that it may be difficult to recruit reviewers for a long-running continuous process when the potential load is difficult to predict. We expect that recruiting a reviewer pool will be easier once we can promise a certain number of reviews spread across specific timeframes.


Revisions must be submitted within 2 quarters (~6 months) of the previous decision to guarantee treatment as a revision (meaning that the same primary and secondary Board Members are assigned, etc.). It is not required for authors to resubmit a revision in the review cycle immediately after receiving a decision. We allow extra time in case the authors need to perform significant new work, such as conducting a new evaluation, before acceptance is possible.

Revisions will be distinguished from original submissions by the authors on the submission form, where there will be fields for the authors to indicate the paper ID and reviewing round in which it was last submitted.


There are four decision types in this process:


These roles are evolving, and will likely change over time.

Editors-in-Chief / Papers Chairs

Two papers chairs are appointed by the conference chair and/or steering committee of the EICS conference. These chairs act as Editors-in-Chief for the four iterations of the review process preceding the upcoming conference.

Editorial Board

The equivalent of the current Senior Program Committee.  Recruited for at least one year terms, likely without limits. Chaired by the Associate Editors-in-Chief.


Recruited by Editorial Board members for specific papers due to expertise and knowledge of the engineering domain.