Selection of Editors
Editors are selected from among experts who have passed the doctoral qualification and have publications in accordance with the scope of publication of the journal.

Duties and Responsibilities of Editors
Coordinating the Peer review: The editor should ensure that the peer review process is fair, impartial, and timely. Research manuscripts should be reviewed by at least two external reviewers, and the editor should seek additional comments when necessary.

Selection of reviewers: The editor shall select reviewers who have suitable expertise in the relevant field, taking account of the need for appropriate, inclusive, and diverse representation. The editor shall follow best practices in avoiding the selection of fraudulent peer reviewers.

Confidentiality: The editor must protect the confidentiality of all material submitted to the journal and all communications with reviewers unless otherwise agreed with the relevant authors and reviewers. In exceptional circumstances and in consultation with the publisher, the editor may share limited information with editors of other journals where deemed necessary to investigate suspected research misconduct. The editor must protect reviewers’ identities. Unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be used in an editor's own research without the express written consent of the author. Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage.

Fair Play: The editor should evaluate manuscripts for their intellectual content without regard to race, gender, sexual orientation, religious belief, ethnic origin, citizenship, or political philosophy of the authors.
Conflicts of Interest: The editor must not be involved in decisions about papers which s/he has written him/herself or have been written by family members. Further, any such submission must be subject to all of the journal’s usual procedures. The editor shall apply the ICMJE guidelines relating to the disclosure of potential conflicts of interest by authors and reviewers.

Publication Decisions: The editor is responsible for deciding which of the manuscript submitted to the journal should be published by reviewing the rev reviewers' reports. The editor must comply with the policies determined by the Editorial Board.

Citation Request for Journal: The editor should not attempt to influence the ranking of the journal by artificially increasing any journal metric. The editor will not request a reference to the articles of his own journal or another journal, except for scientific reasons.

Correction, Retraction, Expression of Concern: Editors may consider issuing a correction if minor errors are detected in the published article that do not affect the findings, comments, and conclusions. Editors should consider retracting the article in case of major errors/violations that invalidate the findings and conclusions. Editors should consider issuing a statement of concern if there is evidence that the findings are unreliable and that the authors' institutions did not investigate the case, if there is a possibility of abusive research or publication by the authors, or if the potential investigation seems unfair or inconclusive. COPE and ICJME guidelines are taken into account with regard to correction, withdrawal, or expression of concern.

Communication: The editor shall use the journal’s standard electronic submission system for all journal communications. See. COPE Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors
• Actively seeking the views of authors, readers, reviewers, and editorial board members about ways of improving their journal’s processes.
• Encouraging and being aware of research into peer review and publishing and reassessing their journal’s processes in the light of new findings.
• Supporting initiatives designed to reduce research and publication misconduct.
• Supporting initiatives to educate researchers about publication ethics.
• Assessing the effects of their journal policies on author and reviewer behaviour and revising policies, as required, to encourage responsible behaviour and discourage misconduct.
• Ensuring that all published research have been reviewed by suitably qualified reviewers.
• Ensuring that non-peer-reviewed sections of their journal are clearly identified.
• Adopting processes that encourage accuracy, completeness, and clarity of research reporting, including technical.
• Editing and the use of appropriate guidelines and checklists.
• Informing readers about steps taken to ensure that submissions from members of the journal’s staff or editorial board receive an objective and unbiased evaluation.
• Editors’ decisions to accept or reject a paper for publication should be based on the paper’s importance, originality, and clarity, and the study’s validity and its relevance to the remit of the journal.
• Editors should not reverse decisions to accept submissions unless serious problems are identified with the submission.
• A description of peer review processes should be published.
• Editors should publish guidance to authors on everything that is expected of them.
• Editors should provide guidance about criteria for authorship and/or who should be listed as a contributor following the standards within the relevant field.
• Reviewing author instructions regularly and providing links to relevant guidelines.
• Publishing relevant competing interests for all contributors and publishing corrections if competing interests are revealed after publication.
• Being guided by the COPE flowcharts in cases of suspected misconduct or disputed authorship.
• Publishing submission and acceptance dates for articles.
• Editors should provide guidance to reviewers on everything that is expected of them, including the need to handle submitted material in confidence.
• Editors should require reviewers to disclose any potential competing interests before agreeing to review a submission.
• Editors should have systems to ensure that peer reviewers’ identities are protected unless they use an open review system that is declared to authors and reviewers.
• Encouraging reviewers to comment on the originality of submissions and to be alert to redundant publication and plagiarism.
• Sending reviewers’ comments to authors in their entirety unless they contain offensive or libellous remarks.
• Monitoring the performance of peer reviewers and taking steps to ensure this is of a high standard.
• Developing and maintaining a database of suitable reviewers and updating this on the basis of reviewer performance.
• Ceasing to use reviewers who consistently produce discourteous, poor quality, or late reviews.
• Following the COPE flowchart in cases of suspected reviewer misconduct.
• Providing clear guidance to editorial board members about their expected functions and duties, which might include: – acting as ambassadors for the journal; – supporting and promoting the journal; – seeking out the best authors and best work (e.g. from meeting abstracts) and actively encouraging submissions; – reviewing submissions to the journal; area; – attending and contributing to editorial board meetings.
• Consulting editorial board members periodically (e.g. once a year) to gauge their opinions about the running of the journal, informing them of any changes to journal policies, and identifying future challenges.
• Editors should make decisions on which articles to publish based on quality and suitability for the journal and without interference from the journal owner/publisher.om the journal owner/publisher.
• Editors should have a written contract(s) setting out their relationship with the journal’s owner and/or publisher. The terms of this contract should be in line with the COPE Code of Conduct for Journal Editors.
• Editors should strive to ensure that peer review at their journal is fair, unbiased, and timely.
• Ensuring that people involved with the editorial process (including themselves) receive adequate training and keep abreast of the latest guidelines, recommendations, and evidence about peer review and journal management.
• Reviewing peer review practices periodically to see if the improvement is possible.
• Editors have a duty to act if they suspect misconduct or if an allegation of misconduct is brought to them. This duty extends to both published and unpublished papers.
• The Editor should be alert to intellectual property issues and work with their publisher to handle potential breaches of intellectual property laws and conventions.
• Editor adopts systems for detecting plagiarism (e.g. software, searching for similar titles) in submitted items routinely.