The editors and members of the editorial boards have the following duties:
2.1. Notify the receipt of the submitted manuscript within a few days from the receipt of the manuscript and provide a qualified, conscientious and operative review of the manuscript.
2.2. Ensure the confidentiality of the manuscript review process, not allowing any details to be disclosed without the permission of the author to anyone other than the designated reviewers, until a decision is made as to whether the manuscript will be published.
2.3. Make a final decision on whether this manuscript will be published or rejected.
2.4. To decide whether to accept the manuscript for publication or for refusal, taking into account only considerations of the importance, originality and clarity of the presentation of the material, as well as its correspondence to the profile of this journal.
2.5. Show respect for the intellectual independence of the author.
2.6. Notify any conflict of interest that may arise. In particular, in cases where the editor is the author of the submitted manuscript, this manuscript should be sent to another editor for independent, careful peer review.
2.7. We should not use the results of the work covered in the articles submitted but not yet published in our own studies.
2.8. Consider the possibility of reviewing articles by specialists recommended by the author himself. However, it is necessary to be sure that such a choice of the reviewer will not lead to a deliberately wrong positive result (for example, if the reviewer recommended by the author is his co-author in previous publications or his supervisor). In any case the editor reserves the right to appoint reviewers by his own choice.
2.9. Do not involve in reviewing those reviewers who are rejected by the author except for cases when the editor has different sufficiently valid reasons that outweigh the author’s arguments.
2.10. Ensure the confidentiality of names and other information relating to reviewers. When it is decided to recruit a new reviewer, the latter may be informed about the names of previous reviewers if this is necessary.
2.11. To react to any manifestations of incorrect scientific behavior by consultations with the author. This may entail the publication of a formal “refutation” or correction.
2.12. Correctly treat the authors’ complaints about refusals to publish the submitted manuscripts.
2.13. Consider the requirements for the protection of information if it is necessary.
