Abstract
In this study we present a scientometric analysis of the Australian Conference on Human–Computer Interaction (OzCHI) proceedings over the period of a decade (2006–2015). Conference proceedings were manually extracted from the ACM Digital Library and analysed. We observed OzCHI to be a popular conference attracting both submissions and citations. A group of leading researchers dominated the publication count followed by a long list of mid career academics. We observed the themes of Design, Health and Well-being and Education to be growing in importance. We also observed that full papers were cited significantly more than short papers. We conclude with a reflection on our methodology and a proposal of recommendations for the HCI/OzCHI community in Australia.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Barbosa, S. D. J., Silveira, M. S., & Gasparini, I. (2016). What publications metadata tell us about the evolution of a scientific community: the case of the brazilian human–computer interaction conference series. Scientometrics, 110, 1–26.
Bartneck, C. (2010). The end of the beginning: A reflection on the first five years of the hri conference. Scientometrics, 86(2), 487–504.
Bartneck, C., & Hu, J. (2009). Scientometric analysis of the chi proceedings. In Proceedings of the sigchi conference on human factors in computing systems (pp. 699–708). ACM.
Bartneck, C., & Hu, J. (2010). The fruits of collaboration in a multidisciplinary field. Scientometrics, 85(1), 41–52.
Byrne, A. (2015). How the ARC funds good research. http://tinyurl.com/jdgxd9y.
Carroll, J. M. (2013). Human computer interaction—brief intro. The Encyclopedia of Human-Computer Interaction, (2nd Edn.). The Interaction Design Foundation.
chi. (2016). Welcome to ACM chi 2017. https://chi2017.acm.org/.
CHISIG. (2016). About CHISIG. http://www.ergonomics.org.au/chisig/about-chisig.
confportal. (2016). Conference ranks. http://www.conferenceranks.com.
Didegah, F., & Thelwall, M. (2013). Which factors help authors produce the highest impact research? collaboration, journal and document properties. Journal of Informetrics, 7(4), 861–873.
Dix, A. (2010). Human–computer interaction: A stable discipline, a nascent science, and the growth of the long tail. Interacting with Computers, 22(1), 13–27.
GSconfportal. (2016). Google scholar conference metrics. https://scholar.google.com.
Gupta, A. (2015). Five years of indiahci: A scientometric analysis. In Proceedings of the 7th international conference on HCI, IndiaHCI 2015 (pp. 56–61). ACM.
HCI Bibliography Most Frequent Authors. (2016). HCI bibliography most frequent authors. http://hcibib.org/authors.html.
Henry, N., Goodell, H., Elmqvist, N., & Fekete, J. D. (2007). 20 years of four hci conferences: A visual exploration. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, 23(3), 239–285.
Hu, Z., & Wu, Y. (2014). Regularity in the time-dependent distribution of the percentage of never-cited papers: An empirical pilot study based on the six journals. Journal of Informetrics, 8(1), 136–146.
Meho, L. I., & Rogers, Y. (2008). Citation counting, citation ranking, and h-index of human–computer interaction researchers: a comparison of scopus and web of science. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 59(11), 1711–1726.
Meho, L. I., & Yang, K. (2007). Impact of data sources on citation counts and rankings of lis faculty: Web of science versus scopus and google scholar. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 58(13), 2105–2125.
Nichols, D. M., & Cunningham, S. J. (2015). A scientometric analysis of 15 years of chinz conferences. In Proceedings of the 15th New Zealand conference on human–computer interaction (pp. 73–80). ACM.
NordiCHI ACM Proceedings. (2016). NordiCHI ACM proceedings. http://tinyurl.com/gl7w9a8.
NTEU. (2004). NTEU. https://issuu.com/nteu/docs/working_offshore.
Padilla, S., Methven, T. S., & Chantler, M. J. (2014). Is british hci important? a topic-based comparison with chi. In Proceedings of the 28th international BCS human computer interaction conference on HCI 2014-Sand (pp. 365–370). BCS: Sea and Sky-Holiday HCI.
Reinhardt, W., Meier, C., Drachsler, H., & Sloep, P. (2011). Analyzing 5 years of ec-tel proceedings. In European conference on technology enhanced learning (pp. 531–536). Springer.
Science and Research Priorities. (2016). Science and research priorities. http://www.science.gov.au/scienceGov/ScienceAndResearchPriorities/Pages/default.aspx.
Stefani, L. (2013). Performance measurement for academic development: Risk or opportunity? International Journal for Academic Development, 18(3), 294–296.
STEM. (2016). Inspiring all Australians in digital literacy and STEM. https://www.education.gov.au/inspiring-all-australians-digital-literacy-and-stem.
Tscharntke, T., Hochberg, M. E., Rand, T. A., Resh, V. H., & Krauss, J. (2007). Author sequence and credit for contributions in multiauthored publications. PLoS Biology, 5(1), e18.
unisyd. (2016). Design lab. http://sydney.edu.au/architecture/research/designlab/index.shtml.
Why research papers have so many authors. (2016). Why research papers have so many authors. http://www.economist.com/news/science-and-technology/21710792-scientific-publications-are-getting-more-and-more-names-attached-them-why.
Zbar, A., & Frank, E. (2011). Significance of authorship position: An open-ended international assessment. The American journal of the medical sciences, 341(2), 106–109.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Mubin, O., Al Mahmud, A. & Ahmad, M. HCI down under: reflecting on a decade of the OzCHI conference. Scientometrics 112, 367–382 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-017-2293-2
Received:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-017-2293-2