When you receive an invitation to review a manuscript, please consider the following before accepting:

• Expertise: Does the manuscript align with your area of expertise? If the topic is outside your core knowledge area, please decline the invitation and, if possible, suggest alternative reviewers.

• Time Commitment: Can you complete the review within the specified timeframe (usually 2 to 3 weeks)? If you cannot meet the deadline, please decline the invitation or contact the Editor immediately to negotiate an extension.

• Conflict of Interest: Do you have any potential conflicts of interest with the authors, institutions, or the research itself? This could include recent collaborations, financial ties, or personal relationships. If a conflict exists, you must decline the invitation.

JJBM operates on a Single-Blind peer review model.

• As a reviewer, you will know the identities and affiliations of the authors.

• However, your identity will remain strictly confidential and hidden from the authors.

This system allows you to evaluate the current manuscript contextually against the authors' previous related work and identify potential overlapping methodologies, while ensuring you can provide honest, critical, and objective feedback without fear of reprisal.

Your review should be objective, constructive, and highly detailed. Please structure your evaluation around the following key areas:

A. General Evaluation

• Relevance: Does the manuscript fall within the Aims and Scope of JJBM (e.g., Population Dynamics, Epidemiology Modeling, Systems Biology, etc.)?

• Originality: Is the research novel and does it contribute significantly to the field of biomathematics?

B. Specific Sections

• Title and Abstract: Do they clearly and accurately reflect the content and main findings of the study?

• Introduction: Does it provide adequate background information and clearly state the research problem, objectives, and hypotheses?

• Mathematical Model / Methodology: Are the mathematical formulations, parameters, and computational methods accurately described, technically sound, and reproducible? Are the biological assumptions behind the mathematical model valid?

• Results and Discussion: Are the results presented clearly? Does the discussion adequately interpret the findings in the context of both mathematics and biology? Are the conclusions fully supported by the data and analysis?

• Figures and Tables: Are the mathematical plots, graphs, and tables clear, highly legible, and relevant to the text?

• References: Are the citations appropriate, up-to-date, and formatted correctly according to the Vancouver style?

C. Language and Formatting

While JJBM conducts copyediting after acceptance, please evaluate if the English language is clear enough for the scientific content to be thoroughly understood. Note that authors initially submit a PDF; the final LaTeX files are collected only after acceptance.

Reviewers are expected to strictly adhere to the guidelines set forth by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE):

• Confidentiality: The manuscript is a privileged document. You must not share, discuss, or use the unpublished data or ideas contained within the manuscript for your own research or personal gain.

• Objective Criticism: Personal criticism of the authors is inappropriate. Express your views clearly with supporting arguments and constructive feedback aimed at improving the paper.

• Suspected Misconduct: If you suspect any form of research misconduct—such as plagiarism, self-plagiarism, data fabrication, or undisclosed conflicts of interest—please notify the handling Editor immediately. Do not conduct your own investigation.

Please submit your review report directly through the JJBM OJS 3 portal. Your report should generally be divided into two sections:

1. Comments to the Editor (Confidential): Use this section to state your clear recommendation and highlight any sensitive concerns (e.g., ethical issues or major flaws) that you do not want to be shared with the authors.

2. Comments to the Authors: Provide a detailed, numbered list of your constructive feedback, categorized into "Major Issues" and "Minor Issues." Do not include your recommendation (e.g., "I recommend acceptance") in this section.

Making a Recommendation

You will be asked to select one of the following recommendations:

• Accept Submission: The manuscript is excellent and requires no further revisions.

• Revisions Required (Minor): The manuscript requires small corrections (e.g., typographical errors, minor clarifications in equations, or slight referencing fixes). The Editor typically reviews these changes.

• Resubmit for Review (Major Revisions): The manuscript requires significant work, such as recalculating data, adjusting the mathematical model, or rewriting substantial sections. The revised manuscript will likely be sent back to you for a second round of review.

• Decline Submission (Reject): The manuscript is fundamentally flawed, lacks originality, falls outside the journal's scope, or has severe methodological errors that cannot be fixed through revision.

Thank you once again for your dedication to the scientific community and for supporting the Jambura Journal of Biomathematics.