{"id":934,"date":"2021-07-24T13:35:50","date_gmt":"2021-07-24T13:35:50","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/vrst.acm.org\/vrst2021\/?page_id=934"},"modified":"2022-11-28T08:24:36","modified_gmt":"2022-11-28T08:24:36","slug":"guidelines","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"https:\/\/vrst.acm.org\/vrst2022\/guidelines\/","title":{"rendered":"Guidelines"},"content":{"rendered":"<h1>Guidelines<\/h1>\n<div>\n<h2 style=\"text-align: center;\">Review Instructions for VRST 2022<\/h2>\n<p>\u00a0<\/p>\n<p><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">This information here is to provide guidance to reviewers for VRST 2022.\u00a0 Specifically, those who will perform full reviews like the secondary (2AC) and external reviewers.<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">The primary (1AC) will examine all full reviews for quality. If the primary finds any reviews of poor quality (e.g., lacking details, missing reasons for rejection, etc.), they will ask reviewers to update their reviews. In extreme cases, the 1AC may remove poorly written or incomplete reviews and find replacement reviewers.<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Our goal is to ensure the highest possible reviewing standards for VRST 2022 both for full papers and short papers. Please read these guidelines before reviewing and reach out to us if you are unclear about anything or need more information. The below information is a guideline for reviewing the paper regardless if it is a full paper or a short paper.<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Paper length must be based on the weight of the contribution. Please do not instruct authors to change a full paper to a short paper, but to review it as a full paper. A short paper is written to be very focused on a topic. For short papers, please evaluate the originality, cutting-edge nature, and other sharp points of the paper rather than its completeness.<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">In terms of the actual review, Ken Hinckley offers great advice on reviewing:<\/span><\/p>\n<p><a href=\"https:\/\/mobilehci.acm.org\/2015\/download\/ExcellenceInReviewsforHCICommunity.pdf\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Hinckley, K. (2016). So You\u2019re a Program Committee Member Now: On Excellence in Reviews and Meta-Reviews and Championing Submitted Work That Has Merit.<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">We present a few of major points from Ken\u2019s paper with minor changes below. Please see the link for a longer list.These guidelines are based on<\/span><a href=\"https:\/\/ismar2022.org\/conference-reviewing-guidelines\/\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\"> ISMAR\u2019 22 website<\/span><\/a><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">.<\/span><\/p>\n<ul>\n<li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"1\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Read papers with care and sympathy. Many hours of work \u2014 in some cases, years of work \u2014 have gone into research and writing this paper. Try reviewing as you would like others to review your own paper.<\/span><\/li>\n<li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"1\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Short and\/or content-free reviews that read like unsubstantiated opinions are insufficient and will be rejected by 1AC.<\/span><\/li>\n<li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"1\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">State specifically why the paper is \u201cgreat\u201d, \u201cmediocre\u201d or \u201cbad.\u201d<\/span><\/li>\n<li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"1\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Clearly describe on what grounds the paper should be accepted (or rejected). Keep in mind that this may be someone\u2019s first paper. Your constructive feedback will be appreciated.<\/span><\/li>\n<li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"1\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Explicitly and clearly discuss the weaknesses and limitations in a positive and constructive manner. Specifically, don\u2019t be insulting \u2013 be positive.<\/span><\/li>\n<li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"1\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Your review should be a critique of what the authors have done and not what they should have done.<\/span><\/li>\n<li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"1\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Do not reject a paper because of anything that can be fixed\/addressed easily as authors will have the opportunity to do so for their camera ready version.<\/span><\/li>\n<li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"1\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Avoid the fallacy of novelty. Specifically, do not simply reject papers because they replicated experiments.<\/span><\/li>\n<li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"1\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">When evaluating papers with human-subjects studies, it is important that the participant sample population be representative of the population for which the technology is being designed. For example, if the technology is being designed for a general population then the participant population should include equal gender representation and a wide range of ages. All papers with human-subject studies should report at a minimum demographic information including age, gender, and every possible hint of social and diversity representation. If this is not the case, reviewers should not automatically reject the paper but instead provide appropriate constructive critique and advice regarding general claims that do not use representative sample populations.<\/span><\/li>\n<li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"1\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">User studies are not required or appropriate for all papers. While the authors need to support their claims with evidence, that form of evidence can vary from paper to paper. In short, the work needs to have a validation but not necessarily with a user study.<\/span><\/li>\n<li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"1\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Papers should be reviewed holistically, taking into account the limitations imposed by COVID-19. The limitations of COVID-19 now strongly differ depending on countries. Please kindly take into consideration of this point.<\/span><\/li>\n<li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"1\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Please do not reject system papers simply because it is built using existing well-known techniques if it accomplishes new functionality. In such situations, judge the novelty and significance of the new functionality. Here are some references for how to evaluate different types of research:<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<ul>\n<li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"2\"><a href=\"https:\/\/dl.acm.org\/doi\/10.1145\/1294211.1294256\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Daniel R. Olsen Jr. (2007): Evaluating User Interface Systems Research<\/span><\/a><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<ul>\n<li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"2\"><a href=\"https:\/\/dl.acm.org\/doi\/10.1145\/3325285\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Kasper Hornb\u00e6k, Aske Mottelson, Jarrod Knibbe, and Daniel Vogel (2019): What Do We Mean by \u201cInteraction\u201d? An Analysis of 35 Years of CHI<\/span><\/a><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<ul>\n<li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"2\"><a href=\"https:\/\/dl.acm.org\/doi\/10.1145\/3173574.3173610\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">David Ledo, Steven Houben, Jo Vermeulen, Nicolai Marquard, Lora Oehlberg &amp; Saul Greenberg (2018): Evaluation Strategies for HCI Toolkit Research<\/span><\/a><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<ul>\n<li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"2\"><a href=\"https:\/\/homes.cs.washington.edu\/~jfogarty\/publications\/workshop-chi2017-codeandcontribution.pdf\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">James Fogarty (2017): Code and Contribution in Interactive Systems Research<\/span><\/a><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p>\u00a0<\/p>\n<p><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Desk Rejections: The primary reviewer may, upon conferring with the secondary reviewer and the program chairs, recommend a paper be rejected without additional reviews. Desk rejects will only occur for papers that are clearly off-topic for VRST, if they are incomplete, if they violate rules of this Author\u2019s Guide, or if they are discovered to have been published previously or to have been submitted concurrently at another conference or journal.<\/span><\/p>\n<p>\u00a0<\/p>\n<p><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Thank you for your support and work to ensure the highest-quality VRST reviews. If you need more information, please do not hesitate to contact us: papers(at)vrst2022.org<br \/>*Please replace \u201c(at)\u201d with \u201c@\u201d when you send an email.<br \/><\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<p><!-- {\"type\":\"layout\",\"children\":[{\"type\":\"section\",\"props\":{\"style\":\"default\",\"width\":\"default\",\"vertical_align\":\"middle\",\"title_position\":\"top-left\",\"title_rotation\":\"left\",\"title_breakpoint\":\"xl\",\"image_position\":\"center-center\",\"text_color\":\"\",\"width_expand\":\"\",\"height\":\"\",\"padding\":\"\",\"header_transparent\":\"\",\"animation\":\"\",\"padding_remove_bottom\":true},\"children\":[{\"type\":\"row\",\"props\":{\"layout\":\"1-1\",\"breakpoint\":\"m\",\"fixed_width\":\"large\",\"column_gap\":\"\",\"row_gap\":\"\",\"width\":\"\",\"width_expand\":\"\",\"height\":\"\",\"margin\":\"\"},\"children\":[{\"type\":\"column\",\"props\":{\"image_position\":\"center-center\",\"media_overlay_gradient\":\"\",\"vertical_align\":\"\",\"style\":\"\",\"text_color\":\"\",\"padding\":\"\"},\"children\":[{\"type\":\"headline\",\"props\":{\"title_element\":\"h1\",\"title_style\":\"\",\"title_decoration\":\"\",\"title_font_family\":\"\",\"title_color\":\"\",\"position\":\"\",\"position_z_index\":\"\",\"margin\":\"\",\"maxwidth\":\"\",\"maxwidth_breakpoint\":\"\",\"block_align\":\"\",\"block_align_breakpoint\":\"\",\"block_align_fallback\":\"\",\"text_align\":\"\",\"text_align_breakpoint\":\"\",\"text_align_fallback\":\"\",\"animation\":\"\",\"visibility\":\"\",\"content\":\"Guidelines\"}}]}]}]},{\"type\":\"section\",\"props\":{\"style\":\"default\",\"width\":\"default\",\"vertical_align\":\"middle\",\"title_position\":\"top-left\",\"title_rotation\":\"left\",\"title_breakpoint\":\"xl\",\"image_position\":\"center-center\",\"text_color\":\"\",\"width_expand\":\"\",\"height\":\"\",\"padding\":\"\",\"header_transparent\":\"\",\"animation\":\"\"},\"children\":[{\"type\":\"row\",\"props\":{\"layout\":\"1-1\",\"breakpoint\":\"m\",\"fixed_width\":\"large\",\"column_gap\":\"\",\"row_gap\":\"\",\"width\":\"\",\"width_expand\":\"\",\"height\":\"\",\"margin\":\"\"},\"children\":[{\"type\":\"column\",\"props\":{\"image_position\":\"center-center\",\"media_overlay_gradient\":\"\",\"vertical_align\":\"\",\"style\":\"\",\"text_color\":\"\",\"padding\":\"\"},\"children\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"props\":{\"margin\":\"default\",\"column_breakpoint\":\"m\",\"text_style\":\"\",\"text_color\":\"\",\"text_size\":\"\",\"column\":\"\",\"position\":\"\",\"position_z_index\":\"\",\"maxwidth\":\"\",\"maxwidth_breakpoint\":\"\",\"block_align\":\"\",\"block_align_breakpoint\":\"\",\"block_align_fallback\":\"\",\"text_align\":\"\",\"text_align_breakpoint\":\"\",\"text_align_fallback\":\"\",\"animation\":\"\",\"visibility\":\"\",\"content\":\"\n\n<h2 style=\\\"text-align: center;\\\">Review Instructions for VRST 2022<\\\/h2>\\n\n\n<p>\\u00a0<\\\/p>\\n\n\n<p><span style=\\\"font-weight: 400;\\\">This information here is to provide guidance to reviewers for VRST 2022.\\u00a0 Specifically, those who will perform full reviews like the secondary (2AC) and external reviewers.<\\\/span><\\\/p>\\n\n\n<p><span style=\\\"font-weight: 400;\\\">The primary (1AC) will examine all full reviews for quality. If the primary finds any reviews of poor quality (e.g., lacking details, missing reasons for rejection, etc.), they will ask reviewers to update their reviews. In extreme cases, the 1AC may remove poorly written or incomplete reviews and find replacement reviewers.<\\\/span><\\\/p>\\n\n\n<p><span style=\\\"font-weight: 400;\\\">Our goal is to ensure the highest possible reviewing standards for VRST 2022 both for full papers and short papers. Please read these guidelines before reviewing and reach out to us if you are unclear about anything or need more information. The below information is a guideline for reviewing the paper regardless if it is a full paper or a short paper.<\\\/span><\\\/p>\\n\n\n<p><span style=\\\"font-weight: 400;\\\">Paper length must be based on the weight of the contribution. Please do not instruct authors to change a full paper to a short paper, but to review it as a full paper. A short paper is written to be very focused on a topic. For short papers, please evaluate the originality, cutting-edge nature, and other sharp points of the paper rather than its completeness.<\\\/span><\\\/p>\\n\n\n<p><span style=\\\"font-weight: 400;\\\">In terms of the actual review, Ken Hinckley offers great advice on reviewing:<\\\/span><\\\/p>\\n\n\n<p><a href=\\\"https:\\\/\\\/mobilehci.acm.org\\\/2015\\\/download\\\/ExcellenceInReviewsforHCICommunity.pdf\\\"><span style=\\\"font-weight: 400;\\\">Hinckley, K. (2016). So You\\u2019re a Program Committee Member Now: On Excellence in Reviews and Meta-Reviews and Championing Submitted Work That Has Merit.<\\\/span><\\\/a><\\\/p>\\n\n\n<p><span style=\\\"font-weight: 400;\\\">We present a few of major points from Ken\\u2019s paper with minor changes below. Please see the link for a longer list.These guidelines are based on<\\\/span><a href=\\\"https:\\\/\\\/ismar2022.org\\\/conference-reviewing-guidelines\\\/\\\"><span style=\\\"font-weight: 400;\\\"> ISMAR\\u2019 22 website<\\\/span><\\\/a><span style=\\\"font-weight: 400;\\\">.<\\\/span><\\\/p>\\n\n\n<ul>\\n\n\n<li style=\\\"font-weight: 400;\\\" aria-level=\\\"1\\\"><span style=\\\"font-weight: 400;\\\">Read papers with care and sympathy. Many hours of work \\u2014 in some cases, years of work \\u2014 have gone into research and writing this paper. Try reviewing as you would like others to review your own paper.<\\\/span><\\\/li>\\n\n\n<li style=\\\"font-weight: 400;\\\" aria-level=\\\"1\\\"><span style=\\\"font-weight: 400;\\\">Short and\\\/or content-free reviews that read like unsubstantiated opinions are insufficient and will be rejected by 1AC.<\\\/span><\\\/li>\\n\n\n<li style=\\\"font-weight: 400;\\\" aria-level=\\\"1\\\"><span style=\\\"font-weight: 400;\\\">State specifically why the paper is \\u201cgreat\\u201d, \\u201cmediocre\\u201d or \\u201cbad.\\u201d<\\\/span><\\\/li>\\n\n\n<li style=\\\"font-weight: 400;\\\" aria-level=\\\"1\\\"><span style=\\\"font-weight: 400;\\\">Clearly describe on what grounds the paper should be accepted (or rejected). Keep in mind that this may be someone\\u2019s first paper. Your constructive feedback will be appreciated.<\\\/span><\\\/li>\\n\n\n<li style=\\\"font-weight: 400;\\\" aria-level=\\\"1\\\"><span style=\\\"font-weight: 400;\\\">Explicitly and clearly discuss the weaknesses and limitations in a positive and constructive manner. Specifically, don\\u2019t be insulting \\u2013 be positive.<\\\/span><\\\/li>\\n\n\n<li style=\\\"font-weight: 400;\\\" aria-level=\\\"1\\\"><span style=\\\"font-weight: 400;\\\">Your review should be a critique of what the authors have done and not what they should have done.<\\\/span><\\\/li>\\n\n\n<li style=\\\"font-weight: 400;\\\" aria-level=\\\"1\\\"><span style=\\\"font-weight: 400;\\\">Do not reject a paper because of anything that can be fixed\\\/addressed easily as authors will have the opportunity to do so for their camera ready version.<\\\/span><\\\/li>\\n\n\n<li style=\\\"font-weight: 400;\\\" aria-level=\\\"1\\\"><span style=\\\"font-weight: 400;\\\">Avoid the fallacy of novelty. Specifically, do not simply reject papers because they replicated experiments.<\\\/span><\\\/li>\\n\n\n<li style=\\\"font-weight: 400;\\\" aria-level=\\\"1\\\"><span style=\\\"font-weight: 400;\\\">When evaluating papers with human-subjects studies, it is important that the participant sample population be representative of the population for which the technology is being designed. For example, if the technology is being designed for a general population then the participant population should include equal gender representation and a wide range of ages. All papers with human-subject studies should report at a minimum demographic information including age, gender, and every possible hint of social and diversity representation. If this is not the case, reviewers should not automatically reject the paper but instead provide appropriate constructive critique and advice regarding general claims that do not use representative sample populations.<\\\/span><\\\/li>\\n\n\n<li style=\\\"font-weight: 400;\\\" aria-level=\\\"1\\\"><span style=\\\"font-weight: 400;\\\">User studies are not required or appropriate for all papers. While the authors need to support their claims with evidence, that form of evidence can vary from paper to paper. In short, the work needs to have a validation but not necessarily with a user study.<\\\/span><\\\/li>\\n\n\n<li style=\\\"font-weight: 400;\\\" aria-level=\\\"1\\\"><span style=\\\"font-weight: 400;\\\">Papers should be reviewed holistically, taking into account the limitations imposed by COVID-19. The limitations of COVID-19 now strongly differ depending on countries. Please kindly take into consideration of this point.<\\\/span><\\\/li>\\n\n\n<li style=\\\"font-weight: 400;\\\" aria-level=\\\"1\\\"><span style=\\\"font-weight: 400;\\\">Please do not reject system papers simply because it is built using existing well-known techniques if it accomplishes new functionality. In such situations, judge the novelty and significance of the new functionality. Here are some references for how to evaluate different types of research:<\\\/span><\\\/li>\\n<\\\/ul>\\n\n\n<ul>\\n\n\n<li style=\\\"font-weight: 400;\\\" aria-level=\\\"2\\\"><a href=\\\"https:\\\/\\\/dl.acm.org\\\/doi\\\/10.1145\\\/1294211.1294256\\\"><span style=\\\"font-weight: 400;\\\">Daniel R. Olsen Jr. (2007): Evaluating User Interface Systems Research<\\\/span><\\\/a><\\\/li>\\n<\\\/ul>\\n\n\n<ul>\\n\n\n<li style=\\\"font-weight: 400;\\\" aria-level=\\\"2\\\"><a href=\\\"https:\\\/\\\/dl.acm.org\\\/doi\\\/10.1145\\\/3325285\\\"><span style=\\\"font-weight: 400;\\\">Kasper Hornb\\u00e6k, Aske Mottelson, Jarrod Knibbe, and Daniel Vogel (2019): What Do We Mean by \\u201cInteraction\\u201d? An Analysis of 35 Years of CHI<\\\/span><\\\/a><\\\/li>\\n<\\\/ul>\\n\n\n<ul>\\n\n\n<li style=\\\"font-weight: 400;\\\" aria-level=\\\"2\\\"><a href=\\\"https:\\\/\\\/dl.acm.org\\\/doi\\\/10.1145\\\/3173574.3173610\\\"><span style=\\\"font-weight: 400;\\\">David Ledo, Steven Houben, Jo Vermeulen, Nicolai Marquard, Lora Oehlberg &amp; Saul Greenberg (2018): Evaluation Strategies for HCI Toolkit Research<\\\/span><\\\/a><\\\/li>\\n<\\\/ul>\\n\n\n<ul>\\n\n\n<li style=\\\"font-weight: 400;\\\" aria-level=\\\"2\\\"><a href=\\\"https:\\\/\\\/homes.cs.washington.edu\\\/~jfogarty\\\/publications\\\/workshop-chi2017-codeandcontribution.pdf\\\"><span style=\\\"font-weight: 400;\\\">James Fogarty (2017): Code and Contribution in Interactive Systems Research<\\\/span><\\\/a><\\\/li>\\n<\\\/ul>\\n\n\n<p>\\u00a0<\\\/p>\\n\n\n<p><span style=\\\"font-weight: 400;\\\">Desk Rejections: The primary reviewer may, upon conferring with the secondary reviewer and the program chairs, recommend a paper be rejected without additional reviews. Desk rejects will only occur for papers that are clearly off-topic for VRST, if they are incomplete, if they violate rules of this Author\\u2019s Guide, or if they are discovered to have been published previously or to have been submitted concurrently at another conference or journal.<\\\/span><\\\/p>\\n\n\n<p>\\u00a0<\\\/p>\\n\n\n<p><span style=\\\"font-weight: 400;\\\">Thank you for your support and work to ensure the highest-quality VRST reviews. If you need more information, please do not hesitate to contact us: papers(at)vrst2022.org<br \\\/>*Please replace \\u201c(at)\\u201d with \\u201c@\\u201d when you send an email.<br \\\/><\\\/span><\\\/p>\"}}]}]}]},{\"type\":\"section\",\"props\":{\"style\":\"default\",\"width\":\"default\",\"vertical_align\":\"middle\",\"title_position\":\"top-left\",\"title_rotation\":\"left\",\"title_breakpoint\":\"xl\",\"image_position\":\"center-center\",\"text_color\":\"\",\"width_expand\":\"\",\"height\":\"\",\"padding\":\"\",\"header_transparent\":\"\",\"animation\":\"\"},\"children\":[{\"type\":\"row\",\"props\":{\"layout\":\"1-1\",\"breakpoint\":\"m\",\"fixed_width\":\"large\",\"column_gap\":\"\",\"row_gap\":\"\",\"width\":\"\",\"width_expand\":\"\",\"height\":\"\",\"margin\":\"\"},\"children\":[{\"type\":\"column\",\"props\":{\"image_position\":\"center-center\",\"media_overlay_gradient\":\"\",\"vertical_align\":\"\",\"style\":\"\",\"text_color\":\"\",\"padding\":\"\"},\"children\":[{\"type\":\"totop\",\"props\":{\"margin\":\"default\",\"position\":\"\",\"position_z_index\":\"\",\"maxwidth\":\"\",\"maxwidth_breakpoint\":\"\",\"block_align\":\"\",\"block_align_breakpoint\":\"\",\"block_align_fallback\":\"\",\"text_align\":\"\",\"text_align_breakpoint\":\"\",\"text_align_fallback\":\"\",\"animation\":\"\",\"visibility\":\"\"}}]}]}]}],\"version\":\"1.22.5\",\"props\":[]} --><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Guidelines Review Instructions for VRST 2022 \u00a0 This information here is to provide guidance to reviewers for VRST 2022.\u00a0 Specifically, those who will perform full reviews like the secondary (2AC) and external reviewers. The primary (1AC) will examine all full reviews for quality. If the primary finds any reviews of poor quality (e.g., lacking details, [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"parent":0,"menu_order":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","template":"","meta":{"footnotes":""},"class_list":["post-934","page","type-page","status-publish","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/vrst.acm.org\/vrst2022\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/934","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/vrst.acm.org\/vrst2022\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/vrst.acm.org\/vrst2022\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/page"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/vrst.acm.org\/vrst2022\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/vrst.acm.org\/vrst2022\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=934"}],"version-history":[{"count":12,"href":"https:\/\/vrst.acm.org\/vrst2022\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/934\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":1856,"href":"https:\/\/vrst.acm.org\/vrst2022\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/934\/revisions\/1856"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/vrst.acm.org\/vrst2022\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=934"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}