cscw-supplementary

CSCW Supplementary Materials

Supplements at CSCW serve a journal-style review: they let reviewers verify the

methods section without bloating a paper already policed by the contribution-vs-

length standard. Because Revise and Resubmit sends the paper back to the same

reviewers, the supplement is also a versioned record — round-two reviewers can

and do compare it against round one.

What goes where

| Material | Main paper | Appendix | Separate supplement file |

| --- | --- | --- | --- |

| Method summary + key instrument excerpts | ✓ | | |

| Full interview guide / survey instrument | | ✓ | ✓ if long |

| Codebook (definitions + paraphrased exemplars) | | ✓ | ✓ |

| Trace-pipeline ledger and attrition table | summary | ✓ | code as archive |

| Analysis scripts | | | ✓ (archive) |

| Additional tables/robustness checks | | ✓ | ✓ |

| Consent forms / recruitment text | | | ✓ |

| Raw transcripts, identifiable data | never | never | never |

Decision rule: **anything a reviewer needs to evaluate a claim belongs in the paper

or appendix; anything a reviewer needs to trust the method belongs in the

supplement; anything participants did not consent to share belongs nowhere.**

Anonymization is deeper than the PDF

The supplement is the classic identity leak at this venue, because it aggregates

exactly the artifacts teams forget to scrub:

• Documents: consent forms carry institution letterhead and IRB protocol

numbers tied to a university; recruitment emails carry names. Redact, and check

PDF/Office metadata (author fields, tracked changes, comments).

• Code archives: repository paths (/home/username/), git history, package

lockfiles with private registry URLs, notebook execution metadata. Export clean

archives, never a cloned .git.

• Data extracts: usernames, community names, timestamps precise enough to

reverse-search, URL slugs. For small communities, the combination of quoted

text and date can identify the community even with names removed.

• Media: screenshots showing account handles, browser profiles, or platform

locale details.

Mechanical sweep before upload:

# strings that must not appear anywhere in the supplement tree
grep -ri -l -E "(surname|firstname|university-name|lab-name|grant-no|protocol-no)" supplement/
# metadata in every PDF
for f in supplement/**/*.pdf; do exiftool "$f" | grep -iE "author|creator|company"; done
# accidental git history or user paths in code archives
find supplement/ -name ".git" -o -path "*Users*" -o -path "*home*" | head

Adapt the string list per project; run it on the packed archive, since packing

often reintroduces metadata.

R&R versioning discipline

• Keep every round's supplement frozen; name uploads by round

(supplement-r2.zip), never overwrite.

• If the response letter cites the supplement ("the revised codebook now includes

..."), the cited file must exist under that name — reviewers check.

• New supplementary material added at R&R must be flagged in the change summary;

silently appearing files read as scope creep or, worse, as identity leaks made

under revision pressure.

Pre-upload checklist

[Inventory]   every supplement file listed in the paper or response letter? y/n
[Consent]     each artifact within participants' consent scope? y/n
[Sweep]       mechanical anonymity sweep run on the packed archive? y/n
[Size/format] platform limits confirmed on the live submission system? 待核实 per
              regime (PCS legacy vs Manuscript Central) — do not assume
[Round label] files named by round; prior rounds preserved? y/n

Platform-specific size and format caps were not verifiable at 2026-07-08; check the

live Manuscript Central instructions for the rolling pathway before packaging.