Regardless, we ask that you respond to review invitations quickly so that we can get the required number of external reviewers in place.

If you are questioning your expertise on a specific review request, reach out to the AC who invited you for that paper to ask what expertise they are expecting from you (i.e., why they invited you). It may be that they need a methods expert or a domain expert and you fit the bill.

Used honestly, though, declining a genuine expertise mismatch is simply the right thing to do, not a risk to your paper.

Repeated or unjustified declines — for example, declining every paper you're offered or ones in which an assessment of your prior publication record shows a good match — may result in your own submission being desk-rejected under the Review Responsibility Policy.

The Program Committee does review declines to confirm the process is being used in good faith.

In most cases, declining a poorly matched paper will result in your being offered a replacement; completing that replacement fulfils your review responsibility for the slot. If we're unable to find a suitable replacement, the decline stands on its own and does not affect your submission's status.

and a willingness to evaluate work within its own methodological context — reviewing outside your immediate comfort zone is a normal and expected part of the role, not something you're entitled to opt out of generally.

That said, "poor match" is not just about personal preference. The minimum qualifications policy expects reviewers to demonstrate awareness of research methods beyond their own specialisation, the ability to recognise the actual limits of their expertise, [...]

Declining a review invitation when a paper is a genuinely poor match for your expertise is allowed under the Review Responsibility Policy, and not treated as a violation. You don't need to accept an assignment you're not equipped to review fairly, and you don't need special permission to decline.

Apply if you have one or more qualifications: - Significant involvement with CHI and/or CHI Workshops - Significant experience reviewing, selecting, and/or jurying technical contents for a SIGCHI-related conference - Regular participation at CHI and/or Workshops (author, presenter, and/or attendee)