The primary responsibility of the Editor is to evaluate whether a submitted manuscript falls within the core focus of the journal. Editors must ensure that manuscripts submitted to JJBM align with one or more of the following Aims and Scopes:

• Population and Evolutionary Dynamics

• Epidemiology and Infectious Disease Modeling

• Systems Biology and Computational Bioinformatics

• Synthetic Biology and Bioengineering Innovations

• Advanced Biostatistical Analysis

• Sustainable Industrial Utilization of Renewable Resources

• Biomathematics in Economic Policy and Conservation

• Mathematical Foundations in Medical and Clinical Sciences

• Optimization and Optimal Control Theory in Biological Systems

• High-Performance Computational Methods for Life Science Models

• Ecological Systems and Environmental Modeling

Manuscripts that do not fit within these areas should be promptly rejected at the desk review stage to save the authors' and reviewers' time.

Upon receiving a new submission assignment in OJS, the Editor conducts an initial appraisal (desk review) before sending the manuscript for peer review. Please evaluate the following:

• Relevance: Does the manuscript strictly fit within the Aims and Scope listed above?

• Originality: Has the manuscript passed the initial similarity/plagiarism check? Submissions with unacceptably high similarity scores or signs of plagiarism should be rejected.

• Formatting and Guidelines: Has the author submitted the manuscript as a PDF (for initial submission)? Does it appear to follow the general structure and Vancouver referencing style as per the Author Guidelines? (Note: The LaTeX source files will only be collected after acceptance).

• Language and Clarity: Is the English language quality sufficient for the manuscript to be understood by reviewers?

If the manuscript fails any of these initial criteria, the Editor should issue a Desk Rejection or return the manuscript to the authors for preliminary corrections.

If the manuscript passes the initial evaluation, the Editor is responsible for organizing the peer-review process:

• Reviewer Selection: Select a minimum of two (2) independent experts in the specific field of the manuscript. Reviewers should not have any conflicts of interest with the authors.

• Single-Blind Review: JJBM utilizes a single-blind peer review process. In this model, the reviewers know the identities of the authors, but the authors do not know the identities of the reviewers. This approach is chosen because it allows reviewers to evaluate the current manuscript contextually against the authors' previous related work, helps easily identify potential self-plagiarism or overlapping methodologies, and recognizes that in highly specialized biomathematical fields, authors are often identifiable anyway through their unique models or preprints. Editors must ensure reviewers' identities remain strictly hidden from the authors to encourage honest and critical feedback.

• Monitoring Progress: Track the progress of the reviews in OJS. Follow up with reviewers if they are late in submitting their reports to ensure a timely publication process.

• Evaluating Reviews: Once the review reports are submitted, evaluate their quality constructively. If the reviews are highly conflicting, the Editor may choose to invite a third reviewer.

Based on the reviewers' reports and the Editor's own assessment, the Editor will decide on the OJS system:

• Accept Submission: The manuscript is acceptable for publication in its current form.

• Revisions Required (Minor or Major): The authors must revise the manuscript based on reviewer and editor comments. The Editor must clearly communicate whether the revisions will be reviewed by the Editor only (minor) or sent back to the reviewers (major).

• Decline Submission (Reject): The manuscript is fundamentally flawed, lacks sufficient novelty, or the authors have failed to adequately address major revisions.

Communicating the Decision: The decision letter sent to the authors should be professional, courteous, and constructive. It must clearly summarize the reasons for the decision and include the reviewers' comments.

Once a manuscript is formally accepted:

• Ensure that the authors have provided the final, compiled LaTeX source files (.tex, .bib, and figures in a .zip file) as requested in the Author Guidelines.

• Verify that the CRediT authorship contribution statement and Declaration of Competing Interest are clearly stated in the final document.

• Forward the manuscript and LaTeX files to the production/typesetting team.

Editors of JJBM are expected to adhere strictly to the Core Practices and guidelines set forth by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), specifically regarding editorial processes and peer review:

• Editorial Independence and Fair Play: An Editor must evaluate manuscripts for their intellectual content (importance, originality, study's validity, clarity) without regard to race, gender, sexual orientation, religious belief, ethnic origin, citizenship, or political philosophy of the authors. Decisions to edit and publish must not be determined by the policies of governments or any other agencies outside of the journal itself.

• Confidentiality: The Editor and any editorial staff must strictly protect the confidentiality of all submitted material. They must not disclose any information about a submitted manuscript to anyone other than the corresponding author, reviewers, potential reviewers, other editorial advisers, and the publisher, as appropriate.

• Disclosure and Conflicts of Interest: Editors should recuse themselves from considering manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions connected to the papers. Unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be used in an editor's own research without the express written consent of the author.

• Management of the Peer Review Process: Editors must ensure that the peer review process is fair, unbiased, and timely. They must take active steps to select appropriate reviewers, identify and prevent fake peer review, and protect the integrity of the single-blind review process.

• Handling Ethical Concerns and Misconduct: Editors must take responsive measures when ethical complaints have been presented concerning a submitted manuscript or published paper. This includes investigating claims of data fabrication, falsification, plagiarism, authorship manipulation, and image manipulation, following the standard COPE flowcharts.