Preview

Professional Discourse & Communication

Advanced search

Editorial Policies

Aim and Scope

PDC aims at publishing cutting-edge timely high-quality papers on professional communication which is broadly understood as a special type of human interpersonal interaction to organize, carry out and optimize any activities within business, economic, political, diplomatic, legal, academic and other professional spheres.

The journal welcomes papers which

  • explore speculative ideas in discourse studies, functional linguistics, pragmatics, semiotics, rhetoric, linguosynergetics, sociolinguistics, cognitive linguistics, stylistics, cross-cultural communication, culture studies, country studies, second language acquisition and teaching methodology;
  • concern issues of professional discourse and communication;
  • are written in innovative ways, or are presented in experimental ways;
  • are written in either English or Russian.

PDC’s mission is to promote scientific cooperation among researchers of professional communication internationally, extending issues of professional discourse to the study of the functional-linguistic, cognitive, interactional, social, cultural and historical contexts.

Professional Discourse & Communication publishes substantial research papers and empirical studies, discussion notes, critical overviews, reviews of books and conferences. The only criteria will be the quality, the originality and the analytical sophistication of its articles.

Professional Discourse & Communication specifically addresses readers in any field of professional communication (business, legal, diplomatic, economic, political, academic and any other professional sphere) who are interested in qualitative, discourse analytical approaches, on the one hand, and scholars in discourse studies, functional linguistics, pragmatics, semiotics, rhetoric, linguosynergetics, sociolinguistics, cognitive linguistics, stylistics, cross-cultural communication, culture studies, country studies, second language acquisition and teaching methodology, and related fields who are interested in issues of professional communication, on the other hand.

 

Section Policies

ТЕОРЕТИЧЕСКИЙ ОБЗОР
Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed
ИССЛЕДОВАТЕЛЬСКИЕ СТАТЬИ
Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed
МНЕНИЕ
Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed
РЕЦЕНЗИИ
Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed
CONFERENCE REPORTS
Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed
 

Publication Frequency

4 times a year (in March, June, September, December)

 

Open Access Policy

"Professional Discourse & Communication" is an open access journal. All articles are made freely available to readers immediatly upon publication.

Our open access policy is in accordance with the Budapest Open Access Initiative (BOAI) definition - it means that articles have free availability on the public internet, permitting any users to read, download, copy, distribute, print, search, or link to the full texts of these articles, crawl them for indexing, pass them as data to software, or use them for any other lawful purpose, without financial, legal, or technical barriers other than those inseparable from gaining access to the internet itself.

For more information please read BOAI statement.

 

 

Archiving

  • Russian State Library (RSL)
  • National Electronic-Information Consortium (NEICON)
  • Scientific Electronic Library (elibrary.ru) - this database offers opportunities for advanced search by keywords, author, title and topic, and stores PDC’s full-text articles

 

Peer-Review

Every paper goes through a double-blind peer-review procedure. It means that reviewers are unaware of the identity of the author, whereas the author doesn’t know the identity of reviewers. The typical period of time allowed for reviews is usually 4 weeks. Based on the reviews the Editor-in-Chief makes a decision to accept the paper without further revision, accept upon revision or reject the submitted paper. 

Neither the reviewer is aware of the authorship of the manuscript, nor the author maintains any contact with the reviewer.

Peer review process

1. Members of the editorial board and leading Russian and international experts in corresponding areas, invited as independent readers, perform peer reviews. Editor-in-chief chooses readers for peer review. We aim to limit the review process to 4 weeks, though in some cases the schedule may be adjusted at the reviewer’s request.

2. Each paper is sent to 2 reviewers.

3. Every reviewer has an option to abnegate the assessment should any conflict of interests arise that may affect perception or interpretation of the manuscript. Upon the scrutiny, the reviewer is expected to present the editorial board with one of the following recommendations:

  • to accept the paper in its present state;
  • to invite the author to revise their manuscript to address specific concerns before final decision is reached;
  • that final decision be reached following further reviewing by another specialist;
  • to reject the manuscript outright.

4. If the reviewer has recommended any refinements, the editorial staff would suggest the author either to implement the corrections, or to dispute them reasonably. Authors are kindly required to limit their revision to 2 months and resubmit the adapted manuscript within this period for final evaluation.

5. We politely request that the editor be notified verbally or in writing should the author decide to refuse from publishing the manuscript. In case the author fails to do so within 3 months since receiving a copy of the initial review, the editorial board takes the manuscript off the register and notifies the author accordingly.

6. If author and reviewers meet insoluble contradictions regarding revision of the manuscript, the editor-in-chief resolves the conflict by his own authority.

7. The editorial board reaches final decision to reject a manuscript on the hearing according to reviewers’ recommendations, and duly notifies the authors of their decision via e-mail.

8. Upon the decision to accept the manuscript for publishing, the editorial staff notifies the authors of the scheduled date of publication.

9. Kindly note that positive review does not guarantee the acceptance, as final decision in all cases lies with the editorial board and the editor-in-chief. By his authority, editor-in-chief rules final solution of every conflict.

10. Original reviews of submitted manuscripts remain deposited for 5 years.

Duties of editors and the editorial board

  • The editor-in-chief and the editorial board are completely responsible for deciding which of the manuscripts submitted to the journal should be published.
  • The editor makes an impartial decision on publication by evaluating the intellectual content of the manuscript. The evaluation of the manuscripts must be accomplished in an objective and nondiscriminatory way.
  • Editorial decisions are not influenced by the origins of the manuscript including nationality, ethnicity, political beliefs, race, or religion of the authors.
  • The editor does not accept a manuscript for publication in the event that there are sufficient grounds to suspect plagiarism.
  • The editor reserves the right to reduce and to edit the text of articles.
  • The editor does not allow any possible conflict of interests to arise

Duties of reviewers

 

  • Reviewers provide an objective and substantiated estimation of results presented in the manuscript. Personal criticism of the author(s) is not allowed.
  • Reviewers notify the editor if they do not have the expertise to assess all aspects of the manuscript or cannot be impartial because of conflict of interests

Duties of Authors

  • to report precisely the originality and significance of their research;
  • to submit only original work and use citations for any already reported material;
  • to avoid self-plagiarism (attempt to republish own previously published work without significant changes),
  • to ensure that the article is an exclusive material and has not been previously published or sent to other journals;
  • to take full responsibility for the content, scientific context and legal aspects of their manuscripts;
  • to inform the editorial board about errors in the article at any stage of material processing or after the publication of the article;
  • to participate in the process of reviewing.

 

Indexation

Articles in "Professional Discourse & Communication" are indexed by several systems:

  • Russian Index for Science Citation (RISC) – a database, accumulating information on papers by Russian scientists, published in native and foreign titles. The RSCI project is under development since 2005 by “Electronic Scientific Library” foundation (elibrary.ru).
  • Google Scholar is a freely accessible web search engine that indexes the full text of scholarly literature across an array of publishing formats and disciplines. The Google Scholar index includes most peer-reviewed online journals of Europe and America's largest scholarly publishers, plus scholarly books and other non-peer reviewed journals.
  • DOAJ - The Directory of Open Access Journals, a community-curated online directory that indexes and provides access to high quality, open access, peer-reviewed journals
  • Ulrich’s Periodicals Directory

 

Publishing Ethics

PDC is dedicated to following best practices on ethical matters, errors and retractions. Any kind of unethical behavior is unacceptable. Plagiarism in any form is not tolerated. Authors submitting papers to PDC affirm that the contents of the their paper are original. Authors warrant that that their paper has neither been published elsewhere nor is it under review for publication anywhere.

 

PDC’s Publication Ethics and Publication Malpractice Statement are based on the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) Code of Conduct guidelines available at www.publicationethics.org,  and requirements for peer-reviewed journals, elaborated by the Elsevier Publishing House (in accordance with international ethical rules of scientific publications)

 

  1. Introduction

1.1. The publication in a peer reviewed learned journal, serves many purposes outside of simple communication. It is a building block in the development of a coherent and respected network of knowledge. For all these reasons and more it is important to lay down standards of expected ethical behaviour by all parties involved in the act of publishing: the author, the journal editor, the peer reviewer, the publisher.

1.2. Publisher has a supporting, investing and nurturing role in the scholarly communication process but is also ultimately responsible for ensuring that best practice is followed in its publications.

1.3. Publisher takes its duties of guardianship over the scholarly record extremely seriously. Our journal programs record «the minutes of science» and we recognize our responsibilities as the keeper of those «minutes» in all our policies not least the ethical guidelines that we have here adopted.

  1. Duties of Editors

2.1. Publication decision – The Editor of Professional Discourse & Communication is solely and independently responsible for deciding which of the articles submitted to the journal should be published. The validation of the work in question and its importance to researchers and readers must always underwrite such decisions. The Editor may be guided by the policies of PDC’s editorial board and constrained by such legal requirements as shall then be in force regarding libel, copyright infringement and plagiarism. The editor may confer with other editors or reviewers in making this decision.

2.2. Fair play – An 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.

2.3. Confidentiality – The editor and any editorial staff of Professional Discourse & Communication must not disclose any information about a submitted manuscript to anyone other than the corresponding author, reviewers, potential reviewers, other editorial advisers, and the publisher, as appropriate.

2.4. Disclosure and Conflicts of interest

2.4.1. 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.

2.4.2. Editors should recuse themselves (i.e. should ask a co-editor, associate editor or other member of the editorial board instead to review and consider) from considering manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or (possibly) institutions connected to the papers.

2.5. Vigilance over published record – An editor presented with convincing evidence that the substance or conclusions of a published paper are erroneous should coordinate with the publisher to promote the prompt publication of a correction, retraction, expression of concern, or other note, as may be relevant.

2.6.Involvement and cooperation in investigations – An editor should take reasonably responsive measures when ethical complaints have been presented concerning a submitted manuscript or published paper, in conjunction with the publisher. Such measures will generally include contacting the author of the manuscript or paper and giving due consideration of the respective complaint or claims made, but may also include further communications to the relevant institutions and research bodies.

  1. Duties of Reviewers

3.1. Contribution to Editorial Decisions – Peer review assists the editor in making editorial decisions and through the editorial communications with the author may also assist the author in improving the paper. Peer review is an essential component of formal scholarly communication, and lies at the heart of the scientific method. Publisher shares the view of many that all scholars who wish to contribute to publications have an obligation to do a fair share of reviewing.

3.2. Promptness – Any selected referee who feels unqualified to review the research reported in a manuscript or knows that its prompt review will be impossible should notify the editor of Professional Discourse & Communicationand excuse himself/herself from the review process.

3.3. Confidentiality – Any manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents. They must not be shown to or discussed with others except as authorised by the editor.

3.4. Standard and objectivity – Reviews should be conducted objectively. Personal criticism of the author is inappropriate. Referees should express their views clearly with supporting arguments.

3.5. Acknowledgement of Sources – Reviewers should identify relevant published work that has not been cited by the authors. Any statement that an observation, derivation, or argument had been previously reported should be accompanied by the relevant citation. A reviewer should also call to the editor’s attention any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and any other published paper of which they have personal knowledge.

3.6. Disclosure and Conflict of Interest

3.6.1. Unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be used in a reviewer’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.

3.6.2. Reviewers should not consider manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions connected to the papers.

  1. Duties of Authors

4.1. Reporting standards

4.1.1. Authors of reports of original research should present an accurate account of the work performed as well as an objective discussion of its significance. Underlying data should be represented accurately in the paper. A paper should contain sufficient detail and references to permit others to replicate the work. Fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate statements constitute unethical behaviour and are unacceptable.

4.1.2. Review and professional publication articles should also be accurate and objective, and editorial 'opinion’ works should be clearly identified as such.

4.2. Data Access and Retention – Authors may be asked to provide the raw data in connection with a paper for editorial review, and should be prepared to provide public access to such data (consistent with the ALPSP-STM Statement on Data and Databases), if practicable, and should in any event be prepared to retain such data for a reasonable time after publication.

4.3. Originality and Plagiarism

4.3.1. The authors should ensure that they have written entirely original works, and if the authors have used the work and/or words of others, this has been appropriately cited or quoted.

4.3.2. Plagiarism takes many forms, from ‘passing off’ another’s paper as the author’s own paper, to copying or paraphrasing substantial parts of another’s paper (without attribution), to claiming results from research conducted by others. Plagiarism in all its forms constitutes unethical publishing behaviour and is unacceptable.

4.4. Multiple, Redundant or Concurrent Publication

4.4.1. An author should not in general publish manuscripts describing essentially the same research in more than one journal of primary publication. Submitting the same manuscript to more than one journal concurrently constitutes unethical publishing behaviour and is unacceptable.

4.4.2. In general, an author should not submit for consideration in another journal a previously published paper.

4.4.3. Publication of some kinds of articles (e.g. translations) in more than one journal is sometimes justifiable, provided certain conditions are met. The authors and editors of the journals concerned must agree to the secondary publication, which must reflect the same data and interpretation of the primary document. The primary reference must be cited in the secondary publication.

4.5. Acknowledgement of Sources – Proper acknowledgment of the work of others must always be given. Authors should cite publications that have been influential in determining the nature of the reported work. Information obtained privately, as in conversation, correspondence, or discussion with third parties, must not be used or reported without explicit, written permission from the source. Information obtained in the course of confidential services, such as refereeing manuscripts or grant applications, must not be used without the explicit written permission of the author of the work involved in these services.

4.6. Authorship of the Paper

4.6.1. Authorship should be limited to those who have made a significant contribution to the conception, design, execution, or interpretation of the reported study. All those who have made significant contributions should be listed as co-authors. Where there are others who have participated in certain substantive aspects of the research project, they should be acknowledged or listed as contributors.

4.6.2. The corresponding author should ensure that all appropriate co-authors and no inappropriate co-authors are included on the paper, and that all co-authors have seen and approved the final version of the paper and have agreed to its submission for publication.

4.7. Disclosure and Conflicts of Interest

4.7.1. All authors should disclose in their manuscript any financial or other substantive conflict of interest that might be construed to influence the results or interpretation of their manuscript. All sources of financial support for the project should be disclosed.

4.7.2. Examples of potential conflicts of interest which should be disclosed include employment, consultancies, stock ownership, honoraria, paid expert testimony, patent applications/registrations, and grants or other funding. Potential conflicts of interest should be disclosed at the earliest possible stage.

4.8. Fundamental errors in published works – When an author discovers a significant error or inaccuracy in a published work, it is the author’s obligation to promptly notify the editor-in-chief of Professional Discourse & Communicationand cooperate with Publisher to retract or correct the paper, If the editor or the publisher learn from a third party that a published work contains a significant error, it is the obligation of the author to promptly retract or correct the paper.

 

  1. Duties of the Publisher

5.1. Publisher should adopt policies and procedures that support editors, reviewers and authors of Professional Discourse & Communication in performing their ethical duties under these ethics guidelines. The publisher should ensure that the potential for advertising or reprint revenue has no impact or influence on editorial decisions.

5.2. The publisher should support PDC’s editors in the review of complaints raised concerning ethical issues and help communications with other journals and/or publishers where this is useful to editors.

5.3. Publisher should develop codes of practice and inculcate industry standards for best practice on ethical matters, errors and retractions.

5.4. Publisher should provide specialized legal review and counsel if necessary.

 

 

Founder & Publisher

MGIMO University (Moscow State Institute of International Relations)

76, Prospekt Vernadskogo, Moscow, Russia, 119454

english.mgimo.ru

 

Author fees

Publication in “Professional Discourse & Communication" is free of charge for all the authors.

The journal doesn't have any Article processing charges.

The journal doesn't have any Article submission charges.

 

Disclosure and Conflict of Interest

Unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be used in a reviewer’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.

Reviewers should not consider manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions connected to the papers.

Authors should disclose all financial / relevant interest that may have influenced the development of the manuscript. In cases of an academic conflict of interest where a reviewer / editor / editorial board member has bias or personal interest that can obstruct the peer-review, the individual should declare their conflicts of interest and refuse participation in the review process.

When members of the editorial board make a submission, it is directed to reviewers outside the journal for double blind reviewing in order to avoid any conflict of interest.

Any relevant competing interests of authors must be available to editors during the review process and must be declared by authors in the published work. Conflict of interest exists when an author (or the author's institution) has financial or personal relationships with other persons or organisations that inappropriately influence or bias their opinions or actions

 

Plagiarism detection

Plagiarism check is the first step in the manuscript review process. Manuscripts that are found to contain unacceptable level of similarity with other published works shall be immediately rejected. Submitted manuscripts should be the original works of the author(s).

“Professional Discourse & Communication" uses native russian-language plagiarism detection software Antiplagiat to screen the submissions. If plagiarism is identified, the COPE guidelines on plagiarism will be followed.

Any kind of fabrication, manipulation and/or falsification of data is considered unethical, and PDC is committed to verifying the data presented in the submitted manuscripts through rigorous assessment of methodological procedures applied in the research, as well as through online check for comparable data. The journal will act in compliance with COPE guidelines for data and reproducibility in dealing with suspected cases of data fabrication, manipulation and/or falsification

 

 

Preprint and postprint Policy

Prior to acceptance and publication in “Professional Discourse & Communication", authors may make their submissions available as preprints on personal or public websites.

As part of submission process, authors are required to confirm that the submission has not been previously published, nor has been submitted. After a manuscript has been published in “Professional Discourse & Communication" we suggest that the link to the article on journal's website is used when the article is shared on personal or public websites.

Glossary (by SHERPA)

Preprint - In the context of Open Access, a preprint is a draft of an academic article or other publication before it has been submitted for peer-review or other quality assurance procedure as part of the publication process. Preprints cover initial and successive drafts of articles, working papers or draft conference papers.
 
Postprint - The final version of an academic article or other publication - after it has been peer-reviewed and revised into its final form by the author. As a general term this covers both the author's final version and the version as published, with formatting and copy-editing changes in place.

 

Correction and retraction of articles

When an author discovers a significant error or inaccuracy in their own published work, it is the author’s obligation to promptly notify PDC’s editor-in-chief and cooperate with the editor to retract or correct the paper. Corrections may be made to a published article with the authorisation of the editor of the journal. Editors will decide the magnitude of the corrections. Minor corrections are made directly to the original article. However, in cases of major corrections, the original article will remain unchanged, while the corrected version will also be published. Both the original and corrected version will be linked to each other. A statement indicating the reason for the major change to the article will also be published. When necessary, retraction of articles will be done according to COPE retraction guidelines.

 

Criteria of authorship

Everyone, who claims authorship, should meet all 3 of the following conditions:

  • Authors make substantial contributions to conception and design, and/or acquisition of data, and/or analysis and interpretation of data;
  • Authors participate in drafting the article or revising it critically for important intellectual content;
  • Authors give final approval of the version to be submitted and any revised version.

Allowing one’s name to be featured as an author without significant contribution to the research or adding the name of an individual who has not contributed or who has not agreed to the work in its current form is considered a breach of appropriate authorship.

Contributors who do not meet the criteria for authorship should be listed in the acknowledgment section of the article (e.g. those who provided purely technical help, copyediting, proofreading or translation assistance).