Proceedings of the ACM on Interactive, Mobile, Wearable and Ubiquitous Technologies (IMWUT)


Search IMWUT
enter search term and/or author name

Social Media


IMWUT Policies


Submissions to IMWUT should follow the ethics review policies of the relevant institutions, countries, and funding bodies. The online submission forms for IMWUT include a tickbox allowing authors to quickly self-certify if this was done (and no paper will be accepted for review where this box is not ticked).  Reviewers should NOT take it upon themselves to comment on the ethics of the methodologies of papers under review, and must not e.g. penalise a paper because it would have failed their own ethics process.  If a reviewer has strong reason to believe that this box was incorrectly ticked they should report it to the Associate Editor.


Starting from November 2017, IMWUT enforces a double-blind review policy.  Authors must remove their names and affiliation from the title area of the manuscript (where author names are usually listed), and must also omit any acknowledgements section, and omit any identifying information in the PDF meta-data.  Failure to perform anonymization in those specific areas may result in rejection of the paper.  Anonymization in the body of the paper outside the areas listed above is encouraged to facilitate author-blind review, but is optional and left to the authors’ discretion.
Authors must leave citations to their previous work unanonymized to allow reviewers to ensure that the existing literature has been adequately taken into account.  Failure to cite previous or concurrently-submitted work in full prevents proper review and may result in rejection of the paper. Authors are encouraged, but not required, to cite their own work in the third person, e.g., avoid “As shown in our previous work [12], … ” and use instead “As shown in [12], ...”.
With respect to papers originally submitted in August 2017 or May 2017 and with revisions being submitted in November 2017 or February 2018, this policy is optional – submissions of such revised papers can choose to either anonymize or not anonymize.
Full author names and affiliations will be revealed only to the IMWUT Editors and the primary Associate Editor (1AE) assigned to the submission.  The identities of reviewers and Associate Editors will remain hidden from the authors.  Except in cases of a conflict of interest, the Editors and the primary Associate Editor for a paper will know the identity of the reviewers.  

Plagiarism and Self-plagiarism

IMWUT follows the ACM policy and procedures on plagiarism (which includes self-plagiarism). As set out by that policy, it is in an author’s best interest to always cite prior work by themselves or others, as this will avoid misperceptions of plagiarism or self-plagiarism. Reviewers should flag any incidence of suspected plagiarism or self-plagiarism to the Associate Editor. If the Associate Editor reject a paper for plagiarism or self-plagiarism, they should inform the Editors, who shall be responsible for deciding whether to take the case further (e.g. reporting it to the ACM).

The most relevant background should be always cited by a paper. This includes the author’s own prior publications or similar simultaneously submitted work. Relevant self-references must never be omitted or cited as "blank for blind review" for the purposes of anonymization or any other reason. This includes citations to works that are not yet available to the general public. If something with overlapping contribution (even a minor overlap) is under simultaneous submission elsewhere, then it must be cited (as “In submission to…” or “To appear in…”) and a copy provided to the reviewers (using the supplemental item fields on the submission form, or via the editors). This enables reviewers to consider the novelty of the contributions with respect to one another.

Prior Publication

IMWUT’s policy is consistent with the relevant ACM policies on Prior Publication and Simultaneous Submissions and Pre-Publication Evaluation.

A document in the ACM Digital Library or equivalent formal repository is technically a prior publication for the purposes of review. This includes (but is not limited to) proceedings of workshops, extended abstracts, conferences or journals – anything published in a formal repository. It excludes technical reports and papers that are simply posted on websites. The Editors should be consulted if it is not clear whether a paper is regarded as being part of a formal repository.

If a paper makes significant amplifying contributions to prior publication(s) by the same authors, then the reviewers should consider the total contribution (i.e., as if the prior publication(s) did not exist), rather than just the added contribution, when deciding whether to accept the paper. The level of significance is up to the reviewers and Associate Editors to decide. The following are examples of criteria that may be taken into account:

  • If a prior publication includes an idea/hypothesis but only a preliminary evaluation (e.g., proof-of-concept only, not thorough, not statistically significant), and the submission contains a full evaluation.
  • If a prior publication’s page length is significantly shorter than the submission, and the additional pages significantly amplify the shorter work.
  • If the submission would be regarded as fully superseding a prior publication for archival purposes (e.g. future citations of this work would generally be to the submission and not the prior publication).

Note that if none of the above apply, but a paper still makes significant contribution over prior work, then it may still be accepted on the basis of those contributions alone.

IMWUT does not permit simultaneous submission of work with identical contributions to any other publication that is part of a formal repository.

Conflicts of Interest

Someone has a conflict of interest with a paper if that person:

  • is an author of the paper.
  • works at an institution named on the paper as being affiliated to one of the authors.
  • works at an institution to which one of the authors has subsequently moved (NB internships and other short visits do not count as “moving” unless the person is working with the author during the internship/visit).
  • has a significant relationship (i.e. more than professional acquaintances) with one of the authors, e.g. they have a familial or financial relationship.
  • has co-authored papers (in progress or published) with one of the authors in the past 2 years before the submission deadline, or had a management relationship with the author in a similar period (e.g. as internship supervisor).
  • has ever had a supervisor/supervisee relationship with one of the authors, with respect to a doctoral-level degree (e.g. a PhD).
  • would stand to significantly benefit or lose out from either the acceptance or rejection of the paper (being cited does not count as a significant benefit).
  • feels they have a conflict of interest (self-declaration by reviewer, not author).

A person who has a conflict of interest with a paper must not (a) have any influence on the paper throughout the review process, or (b) ever find out who is involved with reviewing the paper. This includes Editors. The non-conflicted Editors should be consulted if any clarification is required.

Guidance on Fair Use of Third-Party Material

ACM has published Fair Use Guidelines for authors whose manuscripts include third-party material. Please read them here:

Author Representations

ACM has a new Author Representations Policy, which may be found at:

All ACM Journals | See Full Journal Index