![]()
Reviewer Guidelines

Reviewers play a critical role in maintaining the scientific quality and credibility of publications under Rubatosis Global Publications. Their evaluations support editorial decisions and help authors improve the clarity, accuracy, and impact of their research.
All manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents. Reviewers must not share, discuss, or use the content for personal or professional advantage.
Reviews should be conducted objectively, focusing on the scientific merit of the work. Feedback must be clear, evidence-based, and constructive, avoiding personal criticism.
Reviewers are expected to complete evaluations within the agreed timeframe. If unable to meet deadlines, reviewers should inform the editorial office promptly.
Reviewers must disclose any financial, institutional, or personal conflicts that may affect their impartiality and decline the review if necessary.
Reviewers should identify potential ethical issues, including plagiarism, data duplication, or unethical research practices, and report concerns to the editor.
Reviewers are expected to assess manuscripts based on originality, methodological rigor, clarity of presentation, validity of results, and relevance to the journal’s scope.
Reviewers must not upload manuscripts or any part of them to AI tools or external platforms. AI-assisted tools should not be used to generate or replace critical review judgments.
Reviewers should provide clear recommendations such as acceptance, minor revision, major revision, or rejection, supported by detailed justification.
Reviewers should identify relevant published work that has not been cited by the authors and notify editors of any significant overlap with existing literature.



