Instructions for Reviewers

Please carefully read the following instructions:

1. As an IEEE reviewer, do not use AI tools (e.g., ChatGPT, Gemini) to generate or draft reviews. Articles under review are confidential, and reviewers are responsible for their own evaluations. You were selected for your expertise, not for outsourced judgment.
2. Check the Tags of the submission you are reviewing on the left panel. “None” means it is a full paper. “Short”, “position”, and “industry” represent the respective types of submission. Full and short papers are expected to present novel scientific results. Short papers present late-breaking or incumbent scientific results. You are expected to ensure that the methods are sound, the conclusions are supported by the results, and the article is clearly positioned within the related work. Position papers are expected to present surprising or very novel ideas that are likely to be adopted or evaluated by the cyberbiosecurity community; here, there is no emphasis on scientific results, but novelty and readability are more important than with full or short research papers. Industry papers are expected to present lessons learned from a practical deployment of systems or the analysis of industrial data, leading to better security. The novelty in industry papers is less important than practical real-world deployment. Please report in your comments if you believe the paper better fits a different category.
3. Report to chairs via a confidential comment on any submission that exceeds page limits (10 for full, and 5 for other types) not including references and appendices) or is an otherwise gross violation of the IEEE conference formatting requirements.
4. Immediately report if you have a known Conflict of Interest that went undetected.
5. If you are concerned that you are poorly matched to a submission based on your expertise: do your best to review the submission using your broad knowledge and experience first, and express your concern in a confidential comment.
6. Please read the assigned submissions carefully, critically, and with empathy. Reviews should be provided in HotCRP by completing the items in the review form. Please be responsive to the Chairs handling your assigned submissions.

As a reminder, you are expected to follow standard ethical conduct for peer review. In particular:

• Do not use privileged information (e.g., information and discussions about submissions) for any purpose other than reviewing.
• All forms of collusion, whether explicit or tacit (e.g., an arrangement between authors and reviewers, or chairs to obtain favorable reviews), are ethical violations.

Please see the Ethics Guidelines for more details, and report violations using the confidential comments.

• Deadline for reviews: March 23, 2026
• Reviewers' discussion period: March 24–27, 2026
• Decisions to authors: March 27, 2026