The peer-review process evaluates the originality, intellectual significance, conceptual clarity, methodological soundness, and scholarly contribution of submitted research. Particular attention is given to the accurate interpretation of philosophical and religious traditions, engagement with relevant primary and secondary sources, and the coherence of comparative arguments.

CPRT publishes two issues annually, in June and December, and operates an Online First publication model. Accepted articles may be published online ahead of their assignment to a scheduled issue, following completion of the journal's editorial and production requirements.

Indicative Review Timetable

The following timetable provides an overview of the journal's anticipated editorial and peer-review stages for research manuscripts. Actual processing times may vary depending on reviewer availability, manuscript complexity, the extent of revisions requested, and the need for additional evaluation.

Initial Editorial Screening

All submitted manuscripts undergo an initial editorial assessment conducted by the Editorial Office and the Editor-in-Chief or a designated handling editor. The purpose of this stage is to determine whether the submission satisfies the journal's fundamental requirements for scholarly relevance, originality, research integrity, and suitability for peer review.

Initial screening includes consideration of the following criteria:

• Scope and relevance: Alignment with the journal's Aims & Scope and contribution to comparative philosophy or the scholarly study of religious traditions.
• Originality and contribution: Identification of a meaningful research question, substantive scholarly contribution, and appropriate engagement with existing literature.
• Methodological suitability: Adequacy of the conceptual framework, research approach, analytical structure, and supporting evidence.
• Submission compliance: Adherence to applicable manuscript preparation, anonymisation, documentation, and submission requirements.
• Research and publication ethics: Appropriate attribution, originality, disclosure requirements, ethical compliance, and similarity screening.

Manuscripts that fall outside the journal's scope, lack sufficient scholarly development, or fail to satisfy essential submission or ethical requirements may be declined without external review. Where deficiencies are administrative or readily correctable, the editorial office may request clarification or technical amendments before proceeding.

Indicative screening period: 7–10 days.

Double-Anonymous Peer Review

Research manuscripts that pass initial editorial screening are assigned to at least two independent reviewers with appropriate expertise in the manuscript's subject area, disciplinary context, or methodological approach. Reviewer selection is guided by scholarly competence, relevant research experience, and the absence of disqualifying conflicts of interest.

CPRT employs a double-anonymous peer-review model. Under this arrangement, reviewers are not informed of the authors' identities, and authors are not informed of the reviewers' identities through the journal's review process. Authors are expected to prepare anonymised manuscripts in accordance with the journal's submission requirements.

Reviewers are asked to assess manuscripts according to the following scholarly criteria:

• Originality, intellectual significance, and contribution to existing scholarship.
• Conceptual precision, theoretical coherence, and methodological rigour.
• Depth and appropriateness of comparative analysis, including justification for the selection of traditions, concepts, or texts.
• Historical, linguistic, and cultural contextualisation of philosophical and religious materials.
• Quality of primary-source interpretation and engagement with relevant secondary literature.
• Logical consistency, evidential support, and clarity of scholarly argumentation.
• Accuracy of citations, translations, references, and representation of alternative scholarly positions.

Reviewers are expected to provide constructive and reasoned evaluations that identify both the strengths of the research and areas requiring improvement. Where reviewer recommendations diverge substantially, or where specialised expertise is needed, the handling editor may seek additional assessments, including consultation with a third reviewer.

All manuscripts and review communications are treated as confidential. Reviewers must not distribute unpublished materials or use information obtained through peer review for personal research or advantage.

Indicative external review period: 4–6 weeks.

Editorial Decision

Following receipt of the required review reports, the Editor-in-Chief or designated handling editor evaluates the reviewers' recommendations alongside the manuscript's scholarly merits and the journal's editorial standards. Review reports provide an important basis for decision-making, but the responsible editor retains final responsibility for the editorial decision.

The principal editorial outcomes are:

• Accept: The manuscript meets the journal's scholarly and editorial requirements and may proceed to production, subject to any remaining technical or editorial preparation.
• Minor Revision: The manuscript is considered potentially suitable for publication, provided that clearly identified and relatively limited concerns are satisfactorily addressed.
• Major Revision: Substantial changes are required to the manuscript's arguments, theoretical framework, methodological explanation, source interpretation, or overall scholarly presentation before a further decision can be made.
• Reject: The manuscript does not meet the journal's publication requirements, or the necessary changes would exceed the scope of a viable revision under the current submission.

Requests for revision do not constitute acceptance or guarantee eventual publication. Authors are informed of the editorial decision and, where applicable, provided with reviewer comments or editorial guidance to support the revision process.

Indicative decision period following receipt of reviews: 1–2 weeks.

Revision Process

Authors invited to revise their manuscripts must submit a revised version together with a detailed point-by-point response addressing the comments provided by reviewers and editors. The response should identify the changes made, explain how substantive concerns have been resolved, and provide a reasoned justification where an author disagrees with a particular recommendation.

The journal normally applies the following revision periods:

• Minor Revision: Approximately 2–3 weeks from the date of the editorial decision.
• Major Revision: Approximately 4–6 weeks from the date of the editorial decision.

The applicable deadline is specified in the editorial decision letter. Authors who require additional time should contact the editorial office before the deadline and provide an explanation of the circumstances. Extensions may be considered at the discretion of the responsible editor.

Revised manuscripts are assessed to determine whether the original concerns have been addressed adequately. Minor revisions may be evaluated by the handling editor, while major revisions may be returned to the original reviewers or referred to additional specialists when further independent assessment is necessary.

Failure to submit a revised manuscript within the specified period, without an approved extension, may result in administrative closure of the revision process or discontinuation of consideration of the submission. Authors will be informed of the relevant editorial action.

Final Acceptance and Production

A manuscript is formally accepted only after the responsible editor determines that the submission satisfies the journal's scholarly, ethical, and editorial requirements. The final acceptance decision is communicated through the journal's editorial system.

Following acceptance, the manuscript proceeds through the journal's production workflow, which includes:

• Formal notification of acceptance to the corresponding author.
• Copyediting to improve linguistic consistency, presentation, and adherence to applicable editorial requirements.
• Typesetting and preparation of the article for publication.
• Author review of publication proofs and correction of relevant production errors.
• Final verification of publication metadata and completion of the article's publication record.

Authors are expected to examine proofs carefully and notify the editorial office of any errors identified during final production. Substantive changes to the scholarly argument or research findings at the proof stage require editorial approval and may necessitate additional assessment.

Reviewer Responsibilities

Peer reviewers play a central role in maintaining the scholarly standards and intellectual credibility of CPRT. Reviewers are expected to conduct their assessments independently, professionally, and in accordance with the principles of confidentiality, fairness, and research integrity.

Reviewers must:

• Provide objective, constructive, evidence-based, and appropriately detailed assessments.
• Evaluate submissions on scholarly merit rather than personal, religious, institutional, or philosophical preferences.
• Maintain the confidentiality of manuscripts, review reports, and editorial correspondence.
• Disclose potential conflicts of interest before undertaking an assessment.
• Respect agreed review deadlines and notify the editorial office promptly of any inability to complete an assignment.
• Refrain from exploiting unpublished manuscripts, research materials, or scholarly arguments for personal or professional advantage.
• Protect confidential manuscript information when using digital research or communication tools.

Reviewers should recommend improvements that are directly relevant to the manuscript's scholarly contribution. Requests for additional citations, methodological changes, or theoretical engagement should be justified by the research question and the needs of the argument. Reviewers must not use the review process to advance personal interests or impose unnecessary citation requirements.

Appeals Process

Authors who believe that an editorial decision was affected by a material factual error, significant procedural irregularity, or substantial misunderstanding of the manuscript may submit a formal written appeal to the Editorial Office.

An appeal should:

• Identify the manuscript and the editorial decision being challenged.
• Explain the specific grounds for reconsideration clearly and substantively.
• Address relevant reviewer comments or editorial concerns with supporting evidence where appropriate.
• Distinguish substantive procedural or factual concerns from a general disagreement with the editorial outcome.

Appeals are considered independently of the original decision-making process. Where appropriate, the journal may consult editorial board members who were not involved in the initial decision or seek additional expert advice. The appeal assessment focuses on whether the original decision was reached fairly and on an adequately informed scholarly basis.

An appeal does not guarantee reversal of a decision, renewed external review, or acceptance for publication. The editorial office communicates the outcome after the appeal has been considered in accordance with the journal's established procedures.

Editorial Independence

CPRT is committed to maintaining editorial independence throughout manuscript assessment, peer review, and publication decision-making. Scholarly evaluation is conducted independently of the publisher's commercial interests and is guided by academic quality, relevance, research integrity, and the recommendations of qualified reviewers.

Editorial decisions must not be influenced by an author's institutional position, professional reputation, religious affiliation, philosophical standpoint, financial relationships, or other considerations unrelated to the scholarly merits of the work.

Editors must disclose and appropriately manage conflicts of interest arising from their relationships with authors, institutions, research projects, or other relevant parties. Where an editor's impartiality may reasonably be questioned, responsibility for the manuscript should be reassigned to another qualified editor.

Commitment to Academic Integrity

CPRT regards rigorous peer review as an essential mechanism for supporting credible research, responsible scholarly dialogue, and the integrity of the academic record. The journal is committed to consistent editorial standards while recognising the methodological diversity of comparative philosophy, religious studies, theology, and related disciplines.

The peer-review process should enable constructive engagement with differing philosophical and religious perspectives without compromising standards of evidence, conceptual clarity, accurate interpretation, or scholarly responsibility. All participants are expected to uphold the journal's Publication Ethics policy and contribute to a fair, confidential, and intellectually rigorous evaluation environment.