3. The Editor-in-chief (or editors) of the scientific publication
3.1. Takes responsibility to provide authors of potential publications with correct information concerning the manuscript formatting requirements, publication costs, dates, etc.
3.2. Choose reviewers who have corresponding scientific qualification for the manuscript topic and are experts in the particular field.
3.3. Ensures double-blind if necessary repeated peer-review of the submitted papers.
3.4. Until the publishing, ensures confidentiality of information concerning the submitted papers and anonymity of authors.
3.5. Strives to prevent any possible conflict of interests between authors and reviewers or the editorial board.
3.6. Gets acquainted with reviewers’ statements on the novelty and scientific level of submitted papers. Considering reviewers statements, the editor-in-chief (or editors) of publication makes decisions to accept or reject the manuscripts.
3.7. If the statements of reviewers are contradictory, the Editor-in-chief invites additional reviewers, experts of the particular field, and only then the editorial board makes decisions whether to accept or reject the manuscripts.
3.8. Organizes correspondence with authors, informing them about reviewers’ statements, necessary corrections, and various publishing matters.
3.9. Basing on the reviewers’ statements asks authors to make necessary corrections in order to increase the quality of the manuscripts.
3.10. Asks authors to submit written consents from human subjects (in case of children – their parents’ or caregivers’ consents) who are respondents of the researches and their personal information (e.g. photos) is used in the manuscripts.
3.11. Provides authors, reviewers, readers, and institutions with prompt and correct information about technical mistakes or breaches of publication ethics or malpractice detected in scientific articles.