Find a suitable audience, develop a clear contribution and prepare a submission that reviewers can assess.
A CFP is a call for papers or participation. This is a small, curated starting selection, not a complete calendar or an endorsement of acceptance chances. Sources checked . Dates below are not live availability checks: always reopen the official call.
Selected calls
UPCOMING DEADLINE · VERIFIED 16 OCT 2026
HCI International 2027 · regular paper proposals
23 October 2026 · extended deadline
An 800-word proposal precedes the full paper. The official timetable lists 29 January 2027 for the final paper and 12 February for registration.
Participation: Berlin, Germany; the conference advertises online participation. Confirm the arrangements for your specific track before committing.
The deadline’s time zone was not stated in the timetable reviewed. Ask the organisers; do not assume local midnight.
An anonymous extended abstract and an A0 visual poster. The submission instructions specify four pages excluding references, but a review-criteria paragraph still says six: ask the chairs to resolve this inconsistency.
Participation: On-site or remote by pre-recorded video. At least one author must register and present.
Reviewed, non-archival contributions published as extended abstracts. Check the author review-responsibility requirement. This track is distinct from the full-paper call.
For HCII participation information, see the official conference overview (opens an external website). Registration, publication, travel and accommodation can be separate costs. Confirm funding, accessibility and visa needs early; acceptance does not imply funded attendance.
Choose the route that fits the work
Full research paper
A developed contribution, situated in prior work, with methods and evidence sufficient to support its claims. Review criteria and publication status depend on the venue.
Poster or extended abstract
A focused result, emerging idea or work in progress when the track permits it. It can invite useful feedback, but is not automatically an easier acceptance route. Many venues review a written abstract as well as the visual poster.
Workshop position paper
An argument or perspective relevant to a specific workshop conversation. Check attendance requirements and whether the contribution is published.
Demonstration, student competition or doctoral consortium
Different opportunities to show an interactive system or discuss a research trajectory. Eligibility, expected maturity and selection procedures vary. A doctoral consortium is not generally a route for every master’s student.
From a project to a credible submission
Check fit. Read the track’s aims, criteria and recent accepted work. Write one sentence explaining what this audience learns from your contribution.
Build the argument. Connect the question, gap in prior work, approach, evidence, contribution and limitations. Explain why the methods suit the question; do not make claims beyond the data.
Separate completed work from plans. Label prototypes, pilot observations and proposed studies accurately. A literature review needs a transparent search and selection approach appropriate to its purpose.
Prepare an explicit requirements checklist. Record the deadline and time zone, template, length, anonymisation, supplementary files, ethics and consent, authorship, AI disclosure, review duties, fees and presentation mode. The venue’s current rules take priority.
Ask for a critical read. Ask a colleague to identify your contribution, challenge the evidence and find unclear passages. Revise the reasoning before polishing the visuals.
Respond constructively. Where revisions or rebuttals are allowed, address each concern with evidence and specific changes. If rejected, use the reviews to improve fit and clarity; follow the venue’s rules before resubmitting elsewhere.
There is no formula that guarantees acceptance. Do not submit the same work simultaneously to venues that prohibit it, and check prior-publication rules before reusing an accepted contribution.