Online Submissions

Already have a Username/Password for Professional Discourse & Communication?
Go to Login

Need a Username/Password?
Go to Registration

Registration and login are required to submit items online and to check the status of current submissions.

Author Guidelines

Thank you for choosing to submit your paper to Professional Discourse & Communication. These instructions will ensure we have everything required so your paper can move through peer review, production and publication smoothly. Please take the time to read and follow them as closely as possible, as doing so will ensure your paper matches the journal's requirements.

Manuscript submission

PDC invites authors to submit manuscripts that have not been published before and are not under consideration for publication elsewhere. The authors assume all responsibility for publication approval by the institution where the work has been carried out, and in case of co-authorship – by all co-authors. The publisher will not be held legally responsible should there be any claims for compensation.

You can submit your paper via the website.

Language of the Manuscript 

PDC publishes papers written in both English and Russian.

Author information

Indicate each author’s name, academic title(s) and position(s) if any, affiliation, spheres of scientific interests, ORCID ID, contact data (affiliation postal address, present residence address, contact phone number(s), e-mail). 

Peer Review

Submitted manuscripts will usually be peer reviewed by at least two anonymous reviewers. The editors reserve the right to reject papers that do not meet the scope, subject areas or other basic requirements of the journal. The editors aim to provide contributors with a first decision on their papers within 4 weeks of submission. Editorial changes to accepted manuscripts may be done for the sake of style or clarity; with substantive changes authors will be involved.

Plagiarism

The authors are obliged to ensure that submitted papers do not contain plagiarized material copied from any other publications without proper references.

All authors are required to ensure that the submitted texts exhibit a minimum originality score of 85%. This score will be determined through plagiarism detection tools and should reflect the unique contribution of the manuscript to the field of study. Any submission falling below this threshold may be subject to further review and potential revision to meet the originality criteria.

PDC maintains a strict stance against the submission of reused content, which is considered a form of self-plagiarism. This includes submitting a manuscript that essentially translates an article previously published in another language, either in full or in part. Self-plagiarism arises when an author recycles substantial portions of their own previously published work without proper attribution. Upholding the values of originality and academic integrity is paramount in scholarly publishing, and repurposing previously published content, even if in another language, contradicts these principles.

APC

Professional Discourse & Communication is dedicated to Open Access publishing, and we proudly do not impose any Article Processing Charges (APCs). This means that authors do not bear any financial burdens related to the processing and dissemination of their research. The entire spectrum of processes, including submission, peer review, production, online hosting, and long-term archiving, is conducted at no cost to the authors. This policy underscores our journal’s unwavering commitment to upholding the highest standards of academic integrity, unbiased evaluation, prompt publication, and the promotion of worldwide access to pioneering research. We wholeheartedly welcome submissions from researchers worldwide, ensuring that our platform remains universally accessible.

Editorial process overview

1. Initial Review

This initial stage typically spans from a few days to a couple of weeks. During this phase, the journal conducts a preliminary evaluation to ensure that the submitted manuscript aligns with our guidelines before proceeding to the peer review.

2. Peer Review

The peer review process varies in duration, often ranging from several weeks to a few months. The timeline is contingent on the availability of suitable peer reviewers, the thoroughness of their evaluations, and the number of revisions recommended. Our editors strive to offer contributors an initial decision on their papers within 6 weeks of submission.

3. Peer Review Feedback

Following the peer review process, the journal requires a few days to a few weeks to communicate its decision and provide feedback to the author.

4. Revision and Resubmission

Authors are typically given up to 2 months to make necessary revisions and resubmit their manuscripts. 

5. Final Decision

Once the revised manuscript is submitted, the journal usually takes anywhere from a few days to a few weeks to reach a final decision.

6. Finalization and Publication

Upon acceptance, the process of formatting, proofreading, and preparing the manuscript for publication begins. The actual publication date is also subject to the journal’s publication schedule and the length of the publication queue.

Manuscript structure and format

PDC accepts manuscripts prepared in a Microsoft Word file (from 97-2003 versions onwards) and following the Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association, 6th ed. (http://www.apastyle.org/manual/ ), with presentation in Times New Roman 12pt; 1,5 line spaced. Uniform margins of 1 in. (2.54 cm) should be set on the top, bottom, left, and right of every page, and every paragraph indented ½ in. (1.25 cm). The manuscript should be double-spaced between lines of body text and titles, headings and block quotations, the Reference list and figure captions.

The article length is recommended to be 5000 words or more, including all parts and sections, tables, references, figure captions, endnotes; reports on events and book reviews should be within 1500-2000 words. 
 

Manuscripts should be structured and formatted as follows:

1. title (bold type, upper case and centred; no abbreviations if possible);

2. author’s (authors’) name(s), affiliation(s), e-mail(s) (italics, centred);

3. abstract (no less than 250 and no more than 300 words, stating the aim of the paper, empirical material, methods, main results, and relevance of the study);

4. keywords (5 to 7 units);

5. main text (see instructions below);

6. end-notes (numbered consecutively by order of appearance in the text, if any);

7. grant information (if any);

8. statement of conflict of interest (Authors must provide a clear and transparent statement regarding any potential conflicts of interest. This statement should be included in a separate section. Authors should disclose any financial, personal, or professional relationships that could be perceived as influencing the research or the paper’s conclusions. If no conflicts of interest exist, please state “The author states that there is no conflict of interest.” This declaration is essential for upholding the ethical standards and credibility of research published in Professional Discourse & Communication);

9. references (at least 20-25 references to theoretical works, APA style, see instructions below. Please note that the list includes only those works that are cited within the text of the article);

10. appendices (identified as A, B, C, if any);

11. acknowledgements (if any).

12. author’s (authors’) brief bio (name, academic degree, position, affiliation, city, country, research interest, and ORCID)

For articles in Russian, please additionally provide:

• Title, author(s)’s name(s), and affiliation(s) in Russian and English.
• Abstract and keywords in both Russian and English.
• Two lists of references, as specified in the instructions below.

Ensure that the list of references contains only those sources cited within the main text. Please follow the APA style for formatting your references, and make sure that each reference corresponds to a citation in the manuscript. This is a crucial requirement for maintaining the integrity and scholarly quality of the articles submitted to the journal.

To ensure a fair and unbiased evaluation, please adhere to the following guidelines when preparing a separate version of your manuscript for double blind peer review: 

• Remove any author information, including names, affiliations, and contact details, from the main document and file properties.
• Ensure that acknowledgments or references in the manuscript do not reveal the authors’ identities.
• Be cautious with self-citations; if necessary, use placeholders like “[Author]” instead of actual names.
• Ensure that any institutional references are generic and do not disclose the authors’ identity.
• Ensure that document properties (metadata) do not contain author information. Review and remove any identifying information from the file properties.

Headings and subheadings should be as follows:

LEVEL 1: 1. ARABIC NUMBERS, ALL CAPITALIZED, BOLD.

Level 2: 1.1. Arabic  number + Arabic number, bold.

Level 3: 1.1.1. Arabic number+ Arabic numbers, bold and italics.

Level 4: 1.1.1.a. Arabic number+ Arabic numbers + letter, italics.

If an article is written in English, either American or British spelling should be used consistently (without mixing up) throughout the text. Abbreviations should be defined at their first mention and also used consistently.

Main text instructions

Subdivision 

The article should be divided into clearly defined sections and subsections (numbered 1.1, 1.2, ... , and 1.1.1, 1.1.2, ... , correspondingly). Section and subsection headings should appear on separate lines.

Recommended sections for research papers:

1. INTRODUCTION

In this foundational section, articulate the context and significance of your study. Clearly state the topicality, objectives, research question(s), and subject matter, providing readers with a roadmap for the exploration that follows. Define the problem under consideration, offering a compelling rationale for why it merits investigation. Additionally, outline other research premises that set the stage for the ensuing analysis.

2. THEORETICAL BACKGROUND 

In this section, provide a comprehensive overview of the theoretical foundations that underpin the study. Delve into the key concepts, frameworks, and existing theories relevant to the subject matter. Explicitly connect your research to the broader academic discourse and highlight the gaps or controversies in the existing literature that the study aims to address. Include a critical examination of relevant works, emphasizing any unresolved issues or areas that warrant further exploration. Clearly articulate the theoretical framework guiding your research, demonstrating its alignment with the study’s objectives. This section serves as the intellectual groundwork for the study, laying the foundation for the subsequent analysis and interpretation of findings.

3. MATERIAL AND METHODS  

Detail the empirical material to be analyzed and articulate the chosen methods of analysis, elucidating their appropriateness for the specific research topic. This section serves as a methodological guide, offering transparency on the research approach and ensuring clarity in how the research was conducted.

It is crucial to organize this section into distinct subsections, with each subsection addressing specific components such as data collection, corpus or dataset selection, transcription methods, analytical techniques, and tools or software used. Each subsection should include sufficient detail to allow other researchers to reproduce the study accurately.

Provide a comprehensive description of all materials used in the study, including their source, characteristics, and any relevant specifications. For corpus-based studies, include information on the corpus size, language variety, and the criteria for corpus selection. For experimental studies, describe the stimuli, tasks, or surveys used in detail.

Clearly outline the procedures employed for data collection. This may include details on participant recruitment, sampling techniques, interviews, surveys, ethnographic observations, or elicitation tasks. Justify the chosen methods and address any potential biases or limitations in the data collection process.

Describe the specific analytical methods employed to analyze the collected data. This should include details on qualitative or quantitative techniques, coding schemes, thematic analysis, statistical procedures, or software used (e.g., Praat, ELAN, R, or Python). Justify the chosen methods’ suitability for addressing the research questions and explain how they contribute to the study’s findings.

Where relevant, provide information on sample size, ethical approvals, and any validation or reliability checks conducted (e.g., inter-coder reliability or triangulation). Be sure to describe all materials, instruments, and technologies with enough specificity so that the methods can be replicated without ambiguity.

4. STUDY AND RESULTS

Illuminate the research procedure, unveiling the analysis results and emphasizing novel findings. Present these results in clear and concise statements, ensuring readers grasp the significance of the discoveries. This section serves as the core of the study, showcasing the empirical evidence and insights derived from the research.

5. DISCUSSION

Evaluate the importance and contribution of the study results, exploring prospects for practical implementation and suggesting avenues for future research. Depending on the nature of the study, a combined “RESULTS AND DISCUSSION” section may be appropriate. Engage critically with the findings, contextualizing them within the broader field and considering their implications for the academic community and beyond. 

6. CONCLUSIONS

Provide a succinct summary of the analyzed content and the conclusions drawn from the research. Revisit the key points and insights, emphasizing their broader implications. Conclude with a clear and impactful statement that encapsulates the essence of the study, leaving a lasting impression on readers.

Recommendations on structuring the research paper

Abstract:

• Word count: Provides a concise overview of the entire paper (250-300 words).
• Background: Briefly states the context and significance of the research.
• Aim/Research Question(s): Clearly identifies the aims and questions addressed.
• Methodology: Briefly describes the empirical material and the methods used to collect and analyze data.
• Key Findings: Summarizes the most important results.
• Conclusion: States the main conclusions, their implications, and the relevance of the study.
• Keywords: 5-7 relevant keywords that aid in indexing and searching.

Introduction:

• Background and Context:
  • Introduce the general topic area and its relevance for linguistics.
  • Provide necessary background information for understanding the research problem.
  • Identify a gap in current knowledge or an unresolved issue.
• Statement of the Problem/Research Question(s):
  • Clearly articulate the specific problem or question(s) that the research aims to address.
  • State the research question(s) explicitly and precisely.
• Significance and Novelty:
  • Explain the importance of addressing the research question(s).
  • Highlight the novelty and potential contributions of the study to the field of linguistics.
• Overview of the Paper’s Structure:
  • Briefly outline the organization of the paper and what each section will cover.

Theoretical Background:

• Relevant Theories and Frameworks:
  • Introduce and clearly explain the theoretical framework(s) that underpin the research.
  • Define key concepts and terminology used within the chosen framework(s).
  • Justify the choice of these theories and explain their relevance to the research question(s).
• Review of Prior Research:
  • Provide a comprehensive and critical review of relevant existing literature.
  • Synthesize previous findings and highlight areas of agreement and disagreement.
  • Demonstrate how the current research builds upon or departs from previous work.
  • Clearly position the current study within the existing body of knowledge.
• Development of Hypotheses (if applicable):
  • Based on the theoretical background and prior research, clearly state any testable hypotheses that the study aims to investigate.
  • Provide a logical rationale for each hypothesis.

Materials and Methods:

• Participants/Data Sources:
  • Describe the participants involved in the study (e.g., age, gender, linguistic background).
  • Detail the nature and source of the linguistic data used (e.g., corpus, elicited data, experimental stimuli).
  • Justify the selection of participants or data sources and explain their relevance to the research question(s).
• Data Collection Procedures:
  • Provide a detailed description of how the data was collected.
  • Include information on any tools, instruments, or protocols used (e.g., questionnaires, experimental tasks, recording equipment).
  • Ensure sufficient detail to allow for replication of the study.
• Data Analysis Procedures:
  • Explain the methods used to analyze the collected data (e.g., statistical analysis, qualitative coding, discourse analysis techniques).
  • Specify any software or tools used for analysis.
  • Justify the chosen analytical methods and explain their appropriateness for addressing the research question(s).
• Ethical Considerations:
  • Describe any ethical considerations related to the study (e.g., informed consent, anonymization of data).
  • State whether ethical approval was obtained and from which institution.

Results & Discussion:

• Results:
  • Present the findings of the study in a clear, concise, and objective manner.
  • Use tables, figures, and other visual aids effectively to illustrate the data.
  • Report statistical results (if applicable) accurately and completely, including relevant statistics (e.g., p-values, effect sizes).

• Discussion:
  • Interpret the findings in relation to the research question(s) and the theoretical framework presented earlier.
  • Explain the significance of the results and discuss their implications for the field of linguistics.
  • Compare and contrast the findings with previous research, highlighting any agreements or disagreements.
  • Address any unexpected or contradictory findings and offer potential explanations.
  • Discuss the limitations of the study and acknowledge any potential biases or weaknesses.
  • Suggest avenues for future research based on the findings and limitations of the current study.

Conclusion:

• Briefly reiterate the most important findings of the study.
• Clearly state the answers to the research question(s) based on the evidence presented.
• Discuss the broader theoretical implications of the findings for the field of linguistics of professional communication and any potential practical applications.
• Summarize the key contributions of the research to the existing body of knowledge.
• Provide a strong and memorable final statement that emphasizes the significance of the research.

Acknowledgements (Optional):

• Acknowledge individuals who contributed to the research but do not meet the criteria for authorship (e.g., research assistants, funding agencies, providers of resources).

References:

• Provide a complete and accurate list of all sources cited in the paper. The list has to feature at least 20-25 theoretical sources.
• Ensure all in-text citations have corresponding entries in the reference list, and vice-versa.
• Please ensure that DOIs or URLs, when available, are accurately cited alongside the corresponding references.

Appendices (Optional):

• Include supplementary materials that are not essential to the main text but may be helpful to readers (e.g., detailed questionnaires, experimental stimuli, transcription conventions, additional statistical analyses).

Illustrations, figures, tables, graphs

The journal can include illustrations and is prepared to consider colorful / black-and-white charts, figures, illustrations and graphs if necessary. Table legends and figure / illustration captions are necessary. Write table legends before the tables and figure captions immediately following the figures.

Use of italics for illustrative material

To maintain clarity, consistency, and adherence to widely accepted academic standards, it is strongly recommended that all illustrative material (linguistic examples, including single words, phrases, and longer text excerpts) be presented in italics. This stylistic choice ensures that examples stand out from the main body of text, making them easier for readers to identify and interpret. The use of quotation marks around italicized examples is optional and should be dictated by the author’s preference and the specific context of the example.

In-Text Citation:

Cite in the text by author and date: (Zhu, 2014);

in case of direct quotation the specific page(s) should also be indicated: (Zhu, 2014, pp. 15-16).

If you need to mention several works in the text: (Zhu, 2014; Brow & Collins, 2019).

Use (Op. cit.) if you have to cite a previously mentioned work.

Professional Discourse & Communication adheres to the Guidelines laid out in the Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association (7th ed.) for citations and references. When implementing APA format, the author(s)-year-page scheme must be used for in-text citations as represented in the following examples:

(Brown, 2022, p. 25) for a single author

(Brown & Davis, 2022, p. 25) for two authors

(Brown et al., 2022, p. 25) for three or more authors

A detailed reference for each citation must be included in the reference list at the end of the article. When referencing an idea from another source without directly quoting the material, you should mention only the author’s name and the year of publication, not the page number in your in-text reference. Ensure that all sources cited in the text are listed in the reference list at the end of the article. Please observe these guidelines when mentioning cited matter within the article:

As Brown (2022) argues... (for a single author)

As Brown and Davis (2022) state... (for two authors)

As Brown et al. (2022) describe... (for three or more authors)

Using Footnotes in Articles

In crafting contributions for Professional Discourse & Communication, we encourage authors to utilize footnotes thoughtfully. Footnotes serve as a valuable tool for providing additional information, expanding on specific points, or referencing sources that may not seamlessly integrate into the main body of the text. It is crucial, however, to maintain a balanced approach and avoid overwhelming readers with an excess of footnotes. Each footnote should contribute substantially to the content and enhance the overall coherence of the article.

For references to works, authors are recommended to use ordinary citations in brackets within the main text, listing works in the list of references at the end of the article. This conventional citation method ensures clarity and consistency. Footnotes, on the other hand, are reserved for supplementary information that enriches the narrative without disrupting the flow of the primary text.

Opinion Essays Guidelines

Opinion essays offer authors the opportunity to present their perspectives on theoretical, methodological, or practical issues relevant to the field of professional discourse and institutional communication. These essays should not present original empirical research but instead provide critical insights, make arguments, or propose new directions for inquiry and debate. Opinion essays need to be well-argued, grounded in existing literature, and contribute to ongoing discussions in linguistics.

Opinion essays need to be clearly organized, with a logical flow of ideas. The typical structure should include:

1. Title: A concise and engaging title that reflects the central argument or position.

2. Abstract: A brief summary (250-300 words) of the main argument, the issue being addressed, and the overall conclusion.

3. Keywords: Include 5-6 keywords that capture the essay’s main themes or topics.

4. Introduction: Introduce the issue or topic, clearly state the objective or stance, and provide context for why this opinion matters in the field.

5. Main Argument: Present the core argument or opinion in a clear, structured manner, supported by references to relevant literature, theoretical frameworks, or practical examples.

6. Counterarguments and Rebuttals: Acknowledge potential counterarguments or alternative perspectives and provide reasoned rebuttals.

7. Conclusion: Summarize the key points, restate the importance of the topic and your position, and suggest future research or practical implications.

8. References: Include a list of all sources cited in the essay, adhering to the journal’s citation style.

Consider the following recommendations:

- The title should be engaging and clearly reflect the essay’s focus or central argument. Aim for clarity and precision, keeping it under 15 words.

- The abstract should summarize the main argument, the context of the issue, and the overall conclusion. It should provide a snapshot of the essay’s position without introducing new arguments or excessive detail.

- in the Introduction, clearly introduce the topic, explaining why it is important or timely in the field of linguistics.

- State your opinion or central argument early in the introduction, providing a roadmap for the reader about what to expect in the essay.

- Contextualize the issue by briefly referencing relevant debates, controversies, or gaps in the literature that your opinion contributes to.

- Organize the main body of the essay around a clear and coherent argument. Each section or paragraph should contribute directly to supporting your central claim.

- Use evidence from existing research, theoretical frameworks, or practical examples to substantiate your arguments. This can include citations from empirical studies, theoretical models, or relevant linguistic phenomena.

- Avoid anecdotal or unsupported claims. Even though this is an opinion piece, your arguments must be rooted in rational analysis and supported by credible sources from the field.

- A strong opinion essay anticipates and addresses potential counterarguments or alternative viewpoints.

- Acknowledge opposing perspectives, either from existing literature or theoretical standpoints, and provide reasoned rebuttals.

- Demonstrating awareness of alternative views strengthens your own argument and contributes to a more balanced discussion.

- Summarize the main points of your argument and restate your position clearly.

- Reinforce the significance of your opinion for the field, highlighting what you hope to achieve with this contribution (e.g., sparking further debate, influencing future research, or shaping practical applications).

- End with a forward-looking statement, suggesting possible directions for future research, policy implications, or practical applications related to your argument.

Book Review Guidelines

Book reviews should uphold a commitment to objectivity, offering a balanced evaluation of the merits and potential drawbacks of the reviewed books. Emphasize their contributions to the relevant scientific field, providing readers with a discerning analysis that aids in understanding the scholarly landscape.

Book reviews should mirror the structure and presentation standards of scholarly articles, ensuring a seamless integration into the broader academic discourse. This includes a word length ranging from 1,500 to 2,000 words.

Guiding Principles:

1. Introduction. Begin with a concise introduction that outlines the book’s significance in the context of the specified scientific areas.

2. Summary and Context. Provide a brief overview of the book, contextualizing it within the broader field of science. Highlight key themes, methodologies, and the author’s approach.

3. Critical Evaluation. Engage in a thorough critical assessment of the book’s strengths and weaknesses. Evaluate the author’s arguments, methodology, and overall contribution to the scientific discourse.

4. Comparative Analysis. If relevant, consider how the reviewed book compares to other works in the same field. Discuss unique insights or approaches that distinguish it from existing literature.

5. Conclusion. Conclude the review with a summary of the book’s impact and significance. Offer insights into its potential influence on future research and the advancement of knowledge in the specified scientific areas.

Conference Report Guidelines

Conference reports serve as a vital avenue for delivering comprehensive insights into scholarly gatherings, offering a balanced assessment of the events’ significance and their impact on the specified scientific domains.

Conference reports should maintain objectivity while providing an in-depth evaluation of the conference proceedings. Unveil the noteworthy aspects and potential areas for improvement, shedding light on their contributions to the relevant scientific field.

Ensure uniformity in structure and presentation, aligning with the established standards of scholarly articles. The recommended length for conference reports is between 1,500 to 2,000 words.

Guiding Principles:

Introduction. Commence with a succinct introduction that outlines the context and significance of the conference within the specified scientific areas.

Conference Overview. Provide a brief overview of the conference, emphasizing key themes, notable speakers, and the overall focus. Capture the essence of the event to contextualize subsequent insights.

Session Highlights. Delve into specific conference sessions, workshops, or presentations that stood out. Discuss innovative ideas, methodologies, and any groundbreaking research shared during the event.

Audience Engagement. Explore the level of engagement and interaction among attendees. Highlight networking opportunities, collaborative initiatives, and any notable discussions that took place.

Critical Evaluation. Offer a critical assessment of the conference’s strengths and potential areas for improvement. Discuss the effectiveness of the organization, the relevance of topics, and the overall impact on the scientific community.

Future Implications. Conclude the report by summarizing the conference’s implications for future research and its potential influence on the advancement of knowledge in the specified scientific areas.

By following these guidelines, conference reports aim to provide PDC’s readership with a comprehensive understanding of the academic events shaping the discourse within the scientific disciplines the journal covers.

REFERENCES

A reference list comprises all sources cited in the text of a paper, listed alphabetically by authors’ surnames in size 12pt in conformity with the APA style requirements (see examples below).

Inclusion of DOI for Referenced Publications

Authors are required to provide Digital Object Identifiers (DOIs) for all publications mentioned in the References section, provided that these publications have an assigned DOI. DOIs enhance the accessibility and traceability of referenced sources, contributing to the quality and credibility of the manuscript. Please ensure that DOIs or URLs, when available, are accurately cited alongside the corresponding references in your submitted manuscripts. 

Journal article

Author’s(-s’) surname(s), comma, initial(s), year  (in brackets) and title of article, followed by italicised name of journal, where published, issue (number) and pages (no italics). If DOI (digital object identifier) is available, it is placed at the end of the reference (no period at the end of it). Titles of journals should not be abbreviated.

e.g. Malyuga, E., & Tomalin, B. (2014). English Professional Jargon. Journal of Language and Literature, 5(4), 172–180. doi: 10.7813/jll.2014/5-4/38

Journal article in languages other than English

Author’s(-s’) surname(s), comma, initial(s), year  (in brackets), original title of article followed by title translated into English (in square brackets). Then comes italicised original name of journal, issue (number), and pages (no italics). Then in brackets indicate the original language. If DOI (digital object identifier) is available, it is placed at the end of the reference (no period at the end).

e.g. Guimard, P., & Florin, A. (2007). Les évaluations des enseignants en grande section de maternelle sont-elles prédictives des difficultés de lecture au cours préparatoire? [Are teacher ratings in kindergarten predictive of reading difficulties in first grade?]. Approche Neuropsychologique des Apprentissages chez l’Enfant, 19, 5–17 (in French).

Chapter in an edited book or entry in a reference book

Author’s(-s’) surname(s), comma, initial(s), year (in brackets) and chapter title. Then type ‘In’ editor’s (author/s’) name, date, italicised book title, pages (in brackets, no italics), place of publication, country colon and publisher. If DOI (digital object identifier) is available, it is placed at the end of the reference (no period at the end of it)

e.g. Tomalin, B. (2010). India Rising. In G. Forey & J. Lockwood (Eds.), Globalization: Communication and the Workplace (pp. 41-57). London, UK: Continuum Publishing.

Book

Author’s(-s’) surname(s), comma, initial(s), year  (in brackets), italicised book title, place of publication, country, colon and publisher.

e.g. Zhu, H. (2014). Exploring Intercultural Communication - Language in Action. London, UK: Routledge.

Conference paper

To cite a paper that has been presented at a conference but not published, include the author’s name, the date of the conference, the title of the paper (italicized), “Paper presentation” in square brackets, the name and location of the conference, and a URL or DOI if available.

e.g. Jang, S. (2019, August 8–11). Deconstructing the opposition of natural/arbitrary in Coleridge’s theory of language [Paper presentation]. NASSR 2019: Romantic Elements, Chicago, IL, United States.

Proceedings published in book form 

Author’s(-s’) surname(s), comma, initial(s), year  (in brackets) and title of article, Then type ‘In’ editor’s (author/s’) name, italicised book title, pages (in brackets, no italics), place of publication, country colon and publisher.

Solomennik, A., Cherentsova, A. (2013). A method for auditory evaluation of synthesized speech intonation. In M. Železný, I. Habernal, & A. Ronzhin (Eds.), Speech and computer: 15th International Conference, SPECOM 2013, Pilsen, Czech Republic, September 1–5, 2013: proceedings (pp. 9–16). Cham, Switzerland: Springer International Publishing.

Thesis / Dissertation

To cite a dissertation or thesis from a database, use the following format. In the square brackets, specify the type of dissertation or thesis and the university. As with other database sources, no URL or DOI is included.

e.g. Ford, L. (2015). The use of experiential acceptance in psychotherapy with emerging adults (Publication No. 3731118) [Doctoral dissertation, Pepperdine University]. ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Global.

To cite a dissertation or thesis published in a university archive (often in PDF form) or on a personal website, the format differs in that no publication number is included, and you do list a URL.

e.g. Behrens, B. (2020). Linguistic markers of maternal focus within emotional conversations: The role of depressive symptoms and maltreatment [Master’s thesis, University of Notre Dame]. CurateND. https://curate.nd.edu/show/9k41zc80w8w

Web references

Website citations usually include the author, the publication date, the title of the page or article, the website name, and the URL. If there is no author, start the citation with the title of the article. If the page is likely to change over time, add a retrieval date.

e.g. Slat, B., Worp, C., & Holierhoek, L. (2019). Whales likely impacted by Great Pacific garbage patch. The Ocean Cleanup. https://www.theoceancleanup.com/updates/whales-likely-impacted-by-great-pacific-garbage-patch/

Slat, B., Worp, C., & Holierhoek, L. (n.d.). Whales likely impacted by Great Pacific garbage patch. The Ocean Cleanup. Retrieved August 15, 2020, from https://www.theoceancleanup.com/updates/whales-likely-impacted-by-great-pacific-garbage-patch/

For any further information consult the Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association, 7th ed. (http://www.apastyle.org/manual/ )

For papers in Russian

It is necessary to include two separate lists of references: "Cписок литературы" (adhering to GOST (ГОСТ) guidelines) and "References" (conforming to APA 7 style requirements). This practice ensures a comprehensive and standardized approach to citing sources in academic writing.

Example of formatting sources for the "Cписок литературы" list of references:

1.Карасик В.И. Языковой круг: личность, концепты, дискурс. Волгоград: Перемена, 2002. 

2.Бейлинсон Л.С. Профессиональный дискурс как предмет лингвистического изучения // Вестник Волгоградского государственного университета. Сер. 2. Языкознание. 2009. No 1(9). С. 145-149.

3.Маргания Е.В. Особенности функционально-прагматической адаптации терминологических единиц в научно-популярных текстах медицинского содержания (Автореферат дисс. ... д-ра н.). Белгород, 2011.

Submission Preparation Checklist

As part of the submission process, authors are required to check off their submission's compliance with all of the following items, and submissions may be returned to authors that do not adhere to these guidelines.

1. The manuscripts are accepted if has not been published or submitted for publication elsewhere.

2. The materials should be prepared in a format OpenOffice, Microsoft Word, RTF, or World Perfect.

3. Internet links are provided as a complete URL. 

4. Text should be typed with an interval of one and a half line spacing, font Times New Roman, 12 pt; to highlight the accents it is recommended to use italics rather than underlining (except Internet links). All images, graphics and tables are placed within the text according to the meaning of the particular part of text  (and not at the end of the document).

5. Text should follow the stylistic and bibliography requirements as stated in  Regulations  located in the Part "About Us." 

6. Please, remove the authors' names from the title of the article and other parts of the document to ensure the  anonymity of reviewing.

Copyright Notice

Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:

1. Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
2. Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
3. Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (See The Effect of Open Access).

Privacy Statement

Specified when registering the names and addresses will be used solely for technical purposes of a contact with the Author or reviewers (editors) when preparing the article for publication. Private data will not be shared with other individuals and organizations.