Reviewer Guidelines

1. Ethical Standards and Professional Conduct

Reviewers play a critical role in maintaining the academic excellence of SYMOMATH 2026. All reviewers are expected to adhere to the following ethical principles:

• Confidentiality: Manuscripts received for review are confidential documents. They must not be shared, discussed, or utilized for personal gain before publication.
• Objectivity: Evaluations should be based solely on the scientific merit of the work. Personal bias regarding the author's gender, institutional affiliation, or nationality must be excluded.
• Conflict of Interest: Reviewers must recuse themselves if they have a direct personal or professional relationship with the authors or a competitive interest in the research presented.
• Timeliness: To ensure the symposium schedule is met, reviewers should complete their evaluations within the timeframe specified in the POHALAA system.

2. Review Workflow in POHALAA

The review process is managed entirely through the POHALAA Conference Management System. Follow these steps to complete your review:

1. Accepting the Invitation: Upon receiving an email invitation, log in to your POHALAA account and click "Accept" or "Decline" to manage the assignment.
2. Accessing the Manuscript: Download the anonymized manuscript and supplementary materials from your reviewer dashboard.
3. Submitting the Report: Complete the evaluation form provided in the system. Ensure all required fields, including the numerical scoring and qualitative comments, are filled.
4. Final Recommendation: Select a clear recommendation from the dropdown menu (Accept, Minor Revision, Major Revision, or Reject).

3. Evaluation Criteria

Reviewers should evaluate the manuscript based on the following biomathematical modeling standards:

• Originality: Does the work provide new insights, novel models, or a unique application of existing mathematical techniques to biological systems?
• Methodological Rigor: Are the mathematical formulations sound? Are the biological assumptions clearly stated and justified?
• Clarity and Structure: Is the paper written in clear, academic English? Does the structure follow a logical flow from introduction to conclusion?
• References: Is the work properly grounded in existing literature? Are all sources cited correctly?
• Impact: Does the research contribute significantly to the fields of Biomathematics, Ecology, Epidemiology, or Medical Sciences?

4. Providing Constructive Feedback

When writing your comments for the authors, please be specific and constructive. Avoid vague statements like "this needs work." Instead, provide actionable advice, such as "the stability analysis in Section 3 requires more detail" or "Figure 2 should include a legend for the parameter values."

Note: Since this is a double-blind review, ensure your written comments do not inadvertently reveal your identity.