Retraction procedure

Article retraction and statement of concern

According to the COPE Retraction Guidelines that our journal adheres to, an article may be retracted for the following reasons:

  1. Unreliable conclusions based on clear evidence of misconduct (e.g., fraudulent use of data) or honest error (e.g., miscalculation or experimental error).
  2. Redundant publication, such as findings that have previously been published elsewhere without appropriate cross-referencing, permission, or justification.
  3. Plagiarism or other unethical research misconduct.

Withdrawal procedure

We use the EASE Retraction Form for the withdrawal procedure.

Retractions should occur after the journal's editors have carefully considered appeals received from the editor(s), author(s), or reader(s).

Review Process

In case of filed complaints and/or appeals against editorial decisions, the following review procedure is applied.

  1. Any complaint or appeal is first reviewed by the Editor-in-Chief who is responsible for the journal and/or the Editor-in-Chief who was directly involved in the editorial process.
  2. The editor-in-chief of the publication may enlist in the review two members of the editorial board who have relevant experience of participating in the editorial boards of other publications and with their experience and knowledge can help in the settlement of the dispute and the proper clarification of the circumstances described in the appeal, as well as the proper application of the editorial policy and rules of publication ethics of the Journal.
  3. If the participation of the specified editorial staff or directly their conduct is the object of the appeal, the complainant should contact the Editorial Board for the publication of the «Problems of Semantics, Pragmatics and Cognitive Linguistics» series (send a letter to the e-mail). The complaint is considered at a meeting of the Editorial Board with the participation of the editor-in-chief and managing editor of the journal.

When considering complaints and / or appeals, the following rules must be observed:

  • mutual respect for all participants in the editorial process, the presumption of their proper and conscientious behavior until proven otherwise;
  • granting all interested persons the right to present their arguments in support or opposition to the stated requirements;
  • proper notification of the participants of the editorial process regarding the receipt and consideration of such an appeal, in which their rights and / or interests may be affected;
  • directing the process of resolution of any dispute through the search for compromise and mutual understanding.

A complaint about the scientific quality of an article, such as an appeal concerning the rejection of the article

In the appeal, the author must provide a detailed justification including responses to the reviewers' remarks by points.

The editor-in-chief considers the arguments of authors and reviewers and makes one of the following decisions:

1) reject the application due to the groundlessness of the requirements outlined in the appeal;

2) satisfy the claims stated in the application;

3) to apply to the Editorial Board for the issue of the «Problems of Semantics, Pragmatics and Cognitive Linguistics» series to consider the appeal due to the impossibility of making a final decision in the editorial office.

The complainant is notified of the decision with an explanation. Decisions on appeals are final and new submissions have priority over appeals.

Complaint regarding the peer review (review time, etc.)

The editor-in-chief, together with the managing editor and the management of the Editorial Board for the Publication of a Series of Scientific Periodicals «Problems of Semantics, Pragmatics and Cognitive Linguistics» is investigating the case. The complainant will be provided with a response. The results of the case review will be taken into account by relevant stakeholders to improve editorial and publishing processes.

Complaint about publication ethics, for example, about the behavior of the author or reviewer

The Editor-in-Chief or managing editor must follow COPE, EASE and publication ethics guidelines. The editor-in-chief or managing editor may consult the Editorial Board for the publication of the «Problems of Semantics, Pragmatics and Cognitive Linguistics» series regarding complex cases.

The final decision on rejection of the complaint / appeal cannot be challenged. The editors will not communicate with the authors of the rejected manuscript after such a decision.

If, as a result of consideration of such an appeal, it was found that:

  • the conclusions are unreliable or based on a material error (e.g., miscalculation or experimental error) or as a result of falsification (e.g., image manipulation);
  • the text contains plagiarism;
  • the findings have previously been published elsewhere without proper reference to previous sources or disclosure to the editor, permission to republish or justification (i.e. there is a case of duplication of publications);
  • the text contains materials or data without obtaining proper permission for use;
  • copyright has been infringed or other material infringement of rights has been detected (e.g., defamation, violation of privacy, etc.);
  • research is unethical;
  • the publication took place solely on the basis of a compromised or manipulated review process;
  • the author(s) have not provided information to the editorial office about a significant conflict of interest that, in the opinion of the editor-in-chief, could significantly affect the evaluation of the work or the recommendations of the editors and reviewers.

The PDF file of the retracted article remains on the website, but is clearly watermarked with the note "Retracted" on each page.

Statement of concern

Journal editors should consider publishing a statement of concern on the journal's website if there is evidence of:

  • misconduct of authors during research or publication;
  • the unreliability of the authors' conclusions, but the institution or organization with which the authors are affiliated does not plan to investigate the matter or does not have an appropriate, properly established procedure for doing so;
  • consideration of the application for violation of academic integrity is ongoing, but there are reasonable grounds to believe that a decision will not be made for a long time.