CPRT welcomes research that develops original philosophical arguments, examines intellectual traditions through rigorous textual and historical analysis, engages critically with established scholarship, or facilitates constructive dialogue across philosophical and religious perspectives. Each contribution is expected to demonstrate scholarly integrity, conceptual clarity, and an appropriate relationship between its research objectives, methodology, and supporting evidence.

Authors should select the article category that most accurately reflects the purpose, structure, and scholarly contribution of their manuscript when submitting through the journal's submission system. The descriptions below explain the scope, academic expectations, and indicative length requirements for each category.

Article Categories and Length Guidance

The following categories are available for scholarly contributions to CPRT. Authors should observe the applicable word limits and consult the detailed requirements for their selected submission category.

The word limit for Research Articles includes footnotes and the bibliography. Other categories should follow their applicable length guidance and any additional instructions issued by the editorial office. Special Issue Contributions must comply with the relevant call for papers and the requirements associated with their manuscript type.

Word limits may be adjusted at editorial discretion where the scholarly nature of a contribution justifies an exception. Authors considering submissions substantially outside the stated ranges should seek guidance from the editorial office before submitting.

Research Articles

Research Articles constitute the principal category of original scholarly research published in CPRT. They present sustained philosophical arguments, theoretically informed analyses, or substantial investigations into questions arising within and across philosophical and religious traditions.

Contributions may employ comparative philosophical analysis, historical interpretation, textual scholarship, conceptual reconstruction, or other appropriate interdisciplinary methods. Comparative engagement across intellectual traditions is strongly encouraged, particularly where it provides new insight into significant philosophical or religious questions.

Research Articles should demonstrate:

• A clearly formulated research question or philosophical problem.
• A substantive and identifiable contribution to existing scholarship.
• Critical engagement with relevant primary sources and secondary literature.
• Conceptual precision, methodological clarity, and coherent theoretical development.
• Historically and culturally informed interpretation of the traditions or concepts examined.
• Well-supported conclusions that advance current debates in comparative philosophy or religious thought.

Authors undertaking cross-traditional comparisons should justify their selection of sources and explain the conceptual basis of comparison. Where philosophical terms differ in meaning across languages or intellectual settings, the manuscript should address the implications of these differences for its interpretation.

Research Articles must follow the journal's required Chicago Notes and Bibliography citation style and comply with its submission and publication-ethics requirements.

Comparative Text Studies

Comparative Text Studies focus on the close reading, interpretation, and critical examination of philosophical and religious texts. This category is particularly appropriate for scholarship that investigates textual relationships, conceptual parallels, interpretive differences, and intellectual exchanges across traditions.

Studies may examine classical or modern works, individual passages, commentarial traditions, textual transmission, translation practices, or competing interpretations of philosophical and religious concepts.

Contributions may include:

• Comparative interpretation of classical philosophical and religious texts.
• Cross-traditional hermeneutical analysis and examination of interpretive methods.
• Critical translations accompanied by substantive philosophical or historical commentary.
• Conceptual analysis grounded in specific textual traditions.
• Examination of textual reception, commentary, transmission, and reinterpretation.
• Studies of translation choices and their implications for philosophical interpretation.

Textual and Translation Requirements

Authors must provide sufficient information to establish the textual basis of their analysis. Where applicable, submissions should:

• Identify the editions, manuscript witnesses, translations, and commentaries consulted.
• Explain significant translation decisions where these affect the philosophical argument.
• Provide stable textual references, including book, chapter, section, verse, or page numbers as appropriate.
• Distinguish original-language sources from modern translations and subsequent scholarly interpretations.
• Acknowledge the contributions of translators, editors, and other relevant rights holders.
• Obtain permission for the reproduction of copyrighted translations, illustrations, or other protected materials where legally required.

Translation-based submissions should contribute original interpretive or analytical scholarship rather than consist solely of reproduced or translated text. Where multiple textual traditions or translations are compared, authors should explain the methodological significance of the comparison and acknowledge relevant interpretive limitations.

Dialogue Forum

The Dialogue Forum provides a structured space for critical scholarly exchange among philosophers, scholars of religion, theologians, historians, and researchers working across intellectual traditions. It encourages reasoned disagreement, theoretical engagement, and constructive responses to questions of philosophical and religious significance.

Contributions may examine a shared philosophical problem from different perspectives, critically respond to published arguments, or develop exchanges concerning important methodological, conceptual, or interpretive questions.

The Dialogue Forum may include:

• Contributions by two or more scholars addressing a common philosophical or religious question.
• Critical responses to arguments or interpretations previously published in CPRT.
• Thematic discussions involving different philosophical schools or religious traditions.
• Exchanges concerning comparative methodology, conceptual translation, or intellectual history.
• Scholarly replies that clarify, defend, revise, or critically reconsider significant arguments.

Dialogue Forum contributions must demonstrate analytical substance and engagement with relevant scholarship. Authors should identify the arguments or questions under discussion, present their positions accurately, and develop responses through evidence and reasoned analysis.

Critical disagreement is welcome, but submissions must avoid personal attacks, unsupported allegations, or misleading representations of opposing positions. The journal may coordinate related contributions or invite responses where this would enhance the intellectual value of a discussion.

Critical Review Essays

Critical Review Essays offer extended analytical engagement with significant scholarly publications, theoretical developments, interpretive approaches, or ongoing debates relevant to comparative philosophy and religious traditions.

Unlike conventional book reviews, Critical Review Essays are expected to develop a sustained argument about the intellectual significance, methodological contribution, or theoretical implications of the works under examination. They may address a single influential publication or critically examine several works that contribute to a shared scholarly debate.

Submissions should:

• Provide an informed and analytically rigorous evaluation of the scholarship under discussion.
• Situate the relevant publications or arguments within broader intellectual and disciplinary debates.
• Identify significant theoretical, conceptual, methodological, or interpretive contributions.
• Examine limitations, unresolved questions, or competing scholarly interpretations.
• Explain the implications of the analysis for comparative philosophy, religious studies, or related fields.

Critical Review Essays must demonstrate scholarly independence, appropriate attribution, and sufficient engagement with primary sources or relevant secondary literature. Descriptive summaries without sustained critical analysis are generally unsuitable for this category.

Book Reviews

The Book Reviews section publishes concise, critically informed assessments of recent scholarly books that contribute to comparative philosophy, religious studies, theology, intellectual history, and related fields.

Book Reviews should assist readers in understanding the central arguments, methodological orientation, intellectual contribution, and broader scholarly relevance of the work being reviewed. Reviews should provide balanced evaluation while demonstrating the reviewer's independent scholarly judgement.

A suitable Book Review should:

• Accurately identify the book's principal research questions, arguments, and conclusions.
• Explain the work's theoretical perspective, methodological approach, and scholarly context.
• Evaluate the originality, strengths, and limitations of the book.
• Situate the publication within relevant contemporary research and disciplinary debates.
• Assess its potential contribution to future scholarship, teaching, or comparative inquiry.

Book Review Proposals and Editorial Assessment

Book Reviews are normally commissioned by the editorial office. Scholars may nevertheless submit proposals identifying a book they wish to review and explaining its relevance to CPRT. Acceptance of a proposal is at the discretion of the responsible editor and does not guarantee publication of the completed review.

Reviewers should disclose relevant personal, professional, institutional, or other competing interests relating to the book, its authors, or its publisher. Review assignments should be declined where such interests could compromise independent critical assessment.

Book Reviews should include complete bibliographic details of the work reviewed, including author or editor names, title, publisher, year of publication, and other relevant identifying information.

Special Issue Contributions

CPRT welcomes contributions to thematic Special Issues devoted to significant questions, emerging debates, and focused research areas within comparative philosophy and religious studies. Special Issues provide opportunities for sustained examination of intellectual problems that benefit from coordinated scholarly engagement.

Individual calls for papers specify the thematic orientation, submission arrangements, relevant deadlines, and any additional requirements associated with the Special Issue. Submissions must demonstrate a clear relationship to the announced theme while satisfying the journal's established scholarly and ethical standards.

Special Issue Contributions are expected to:

• Address the central questions and academic objectives of the Special Issue.
• Make an original and identifiable scholarly contribution.
• Demonstrate conceptual clarity, methodological appropriateness, and adequate engagement with relevant research.
• Observe the publication-ethics and manuscript-preparation requirements applicable to the selected article type.
• Comply with the relevant call for papers and the journal's editorial procedures.

Guest Editorial Oversight and Peer Review

Guest editors may assist in developing the thematic framework of a Special Issue, coordinating scholarly contributions, and identifying appropriate subject expertise. Their responsibilities are exercised within the journal's established editorial and publication-ethics framework.

Research manuscripts submitted to Special Issues undergo independent double-anonymous peer review in accordance with the same scholarly standards applied to regular Research Articles. Guest editorial involvement does not exempt research submissions from the journal's review requirements or guarantee acceptance.

The Editor-in-Chief or designated journal editor retains final responsibility for editorial decisions. Potential conflicts of interest involving guest editors, contributors, or reviewers must be disclosed and appropriately managed.

General Requirements Across All Categories

All categories of scholarly contribution must comply with the journal's standards of originality, accurate attribution, responsible academic conduct, and appropriate manuscript preparation. Requirements concerning anonymisation and external peer review are applied according to the relevant article category.

Unless a specific exception has been authorised by the editorial office, submissions must:

• Present original scholarly content that is not under simultaneous consideration by another journal or publisher.
• Follow The Chicago Manual of Style, 17th edition, Notes and Bibliography system.
• Include an abstract of no more than 300 words and four to six keywords, in accordance with the journal's Submission Guidelines.
• Provide accurate and complete references, including relevant source editions, translations, and publication information.
• Comply with the journal's Publication Ethics Policy, including applicable authorship, originality, funding, and competing-interest requirements.
• Disclose relevant use of artificial intelligence tools in manuscript preparation.
• Obtain permission for copyrighted third-party materials where legally required.
• Submit anonymised review files where required by the applicable double-anonymous peer-review process.

Peer Review and Editorial Assessment

Research Articles and other substantive scholarly contributions selected for external evaluation undergo double-anonymous peer review, subject to the journal's established procedures. Commissioned Book Reviews may be evaluated through editorial assessment rather than external peer review.

Editorial assessment and peer review are intended to determine the originality, scholarly significance, analytical quality, and suitability of contributions for publication. All editorial decisions remain subject to the journal's academic and ethical standards.

Authors should consult the journal's Submission Guidelines and Peer Review Process policy for detailed requirements concerning manuscript files, citation formatting, review procedures, revision deadlines, and editorial decisions.

Editorial Discretion

The Editor-in-Chief and designated editors are responsible for determining whether submissions satisfy the journal's scholarly and editorial requirements. Editorial discretion is exercised to maintain consistency, academic quality, and appropriate evaluation standards across contribution types.

The editorial team may:

• Reassign a submission to a more appropriate article category following editorial assessment.
• Request changes to manuscript length, structure, presentation, or scholarly documentation.
• Request clarification of the research question, comparative framework, textual evidence, or methodological approach.
• Seek additional expert evaluation where the manuscript requires specialised scholarly assessment.
• Decline submissions that fall outside the journal's scope or do not meet its scholarly, ethical, or editorial standards.
• Consider justified exceptions to the stated length guidance or other non-essential presentation requirements.

Reclassification, editorial guidance, or an invitation to revise does not imply acceptance for publication. Decisions are based on scholarly quality, relevance, research integrity, and the outcomes of the applicable editorial or peer-review process.