According to the reviewers, the paper I have submitted is now ready for publication. How long I should wait to know the final decision of the editor-in-chief?
Reviewers can only recommend a verdict so what they say is not necessarily the outcome, the editor has final say. Of course if two reviews agree then it is very likely the outcome will be what they suggest. In a normal review situation involving an editor, the reviewers provide their reviews to the editor who in turn will make a judgement and pass on comments and possible suggestions for improvements to you. If your manuscript is in an open review system (such as the discussion format of Copernicus Open Access journals), you may see the reviews before final decisions are taken and in such a case, I would not trust reviewers opinions on the verdict until you also hear so from the editor.
As is pointed out in a comment, it is a bit intriguing that you seem to have the reviewers comments but not that from the editor. The time between completion of reviews and to a decision by an editor will vary depending on many factors. The editor has to read the reviews in light of the manuscript and then value the comments and provide a synthesis of the outcome for you. Obviously the editor will have other manuscripts to handle in parallel which influences the time a decision may take. To state a time that can be applied to any situation or journal is therefore pointless. I am, however, certain that any serious editor is not keen to hold on to a decision for any extended period. With the journals I have published and the one where I am Editor-in-Chief times from receipt of reviews to decision can vary from maybe days up to a month in rare cases. This seems reasonable for the field in which I work but I am sure that such times vary between both field and journals within a field.
I am late to the discussion, but these issues are timeless, so I hope its okay. The reviewer comments, if positive, certainly influence an editorial decision positively, but you can't rely on them. Wait for the editor to respond. Different journals have different policies. Here is an anecdote from a BMC journal.
My paper was in review at this journal for close to 4 months, during which we went through two revisions. At the end of it, two of the three reviewers took cheap shots at our product and shot the paper down. The editor, as it turned out, a person with a Master's degree opined "based on reviewer reports, we are rejecting this manuscript". We complained because there was no editorial opinion and were asked to resubmit the manuscript. During second review, they invited two additional reviewers and we finally were able to provide satisfactory revisions and both reviewers recommended acceptance. Again no editorial comment was provided. Our editor during the second submission is a fresh PhD graduate. We have been awaiting a final decision for 10 days. Upon inquiring we were told that now a senior editorial board member is assessing the manuscript before a final decision could be rendered.
I certainly do not think this is the norm, but keep in mind that there are journals out there who do a sloppy job and employ unqualified people in editor's position.