Review for From Mice to Men – 24 years of Evaluation in CHI

The paper reviews the role of evaluation in CHI literature. It also spots aspects that is in need of improvement. It provides some potential ways in which those improvements can be made.

The paper is a nice overview of the role evaluation has taken so far in CHI literature. The comment about the difficulty associated with presenting ground-breaking new work is especially interesting. I wish there were more discussion on that aspect, though. If there were mentions of several good examples of rejected papers that produced results out in the industry, for example, that would back up the claim, it would have been great. The points made on gender bias and overuse of sutdents are also warranted. I wish there were more in depth discussions on how improvements could be made. I believe, just the mere fact that a paper raises these concers is a great thing.