CPRT's publication ethics framework is informed by the principles and Core Practices of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). These principles guide the responsibilities of authors, reviewers, editors, and the publisher throughout manuscript submission, peer review, publication, and post-publication assessment.

As a journal devoted to comparative philosophy and religious traditions, CPRT also recognises the ethical significance of accurate textual interpretation, responsible translation, appropriate attribution, and respectful engagement with intellectual and cultural traditions. All participants in the publication process are expected to uphold these principles and cooperate in the resolution of legitimate concerns relating to research and publication integrity.

Editorial Responsibility and Independence

The Editor-in-Chief and editorial team are responsible for maintaining the scholarly quality, integrity, and editorial standards of the journal. Manuscripts are assessed according to their originality, intellectual contribution, methodological soundness, clarity of argumentation, engagement with relevant scholarship, and suitability for CPRT's aims and scope.

Editorial decisions must be made independently of commercial, financial, institutional, political, or personal pressures. The publisher supports the editorial independence of the journal, while the Editor-in-Chief and designated editors retain responsibility for decisions concerning manuscript evaluation and publication.

Editors must treat manuscripts and their associated materials confidentially, manage competing interests, and ensure that submissions are evaluated without discrimination based on authors' nationality, institutional affiliation, religious commitments, philosophical positions, or other characteristics unrelated to scholarly merit. Editors must not use unpublished information obtained through their editorial responsibilities for personal research or advantage without appropriate authorisation.

Peer Review Integrity

Research manuscripts that satisfy the journal's initial editorial screening requirements undergo double-anonymous peer review, in which the identities of authors and reviewers are concealed from one another during the review process. At least two independent reviewers are assigned to evaluate each research article.

Reviewers are selected on the basis of relevant subject expertise and are expected to:

• Evaluate manuscripts objectively, impartially, and constructively.
• Maintain the confidentiality of manuscripts, review reports, and editorial communications.
• Disclose relevant financial, institutional, personal, or professional competing interests before accepting a review assignment.
• Identify significant methodological weaknesses, unsupported interpretations, and relevant omissions from the scholarly literature.
• Refrain from using unpublished manuscripts, arguments, or research findings for personal advantage.
• Provide reasoned assessments within the agreed review period and notify the editorial office when unable to complete a review responsibly.

Editors consider reviewers' assessments alongside their own evaluation of the manuscript. Review reports inform editorial decisions but do not automatically determine acceptance or rejection. Where reviewers provide conflicting assessments, the responsible editor may seek additional expert evaluation.

Authorship and Contributorship

Authorship must accurately reflect substantive intellectual responsibility for the submitted work. Individuals listed as authors should have made meaningful contributions to the research, participated in drafting or critically revising the manuscript, approved the version submitted for consideration, and accepted responsibility for their contributions to the integrity of the work.

Qualifying intellectual contributions may include:

• Formulation of the research question, theoretical framework, or study design.
• Substantial textual, philosophical, historical, or empirical analysis and interpretation.
• Development of original arguments, comparative frameworks, or significant scholarly conclusions.
• Drafting or critically revising the manuscript in ways that materially affect its intellectual content.

All listed authors must approve the manuscript before submission and approve the final version prior to publication. The corresponding author is responsible for ensuring that all authors have been appropriately identified and that the author list and contribution information are accurate.

Individuals who provide assistance but do not qualify for authorship should be acknowledged, with their consent where appropriate. The journal does not permit ghost authorship, gift authorship, honorary authorship, or the exclusion of individuals who satisfy the relevant authorship requirements.

Requests to add, remove, or reorder authors after submission must be accompanied by an explanation and the documented agreement of the individuals concerned. The editorial office may suspend processing while an authorship dispute is considered. The journal does not determine legal ownership of disputed intellectual contributions and may require resolution by the relevant institutions.

Originality, Plagiarism, and Redundant Publication

Manuscripts submitted to CPRT must represent original scholarly work and must not be under simultaneous consideration by another journal or publisher. Authors must disclose any prior dissemination, publication, translation, or substantial overlap involving the submitted material where it may affect originality or publication eligibility.

The journal prohibits plagiarism, unattributed paraphrasing, inappropriate reuse of previously published material, misleading presentation of others' arguments, and redundant publication. Authors must clearly distinguish their own analysis from quotations, translations, interpretations, and material derived from other sources.

In comparative philosophy and religious studies, particular care must be taken when working with translated texts, classical sources, commentarial traditions, and secondary interpretations. Authors should identify the editions and translations used, acknowledge relevant translators and editors, and avoid presenting established interpretations as original contributions.

CPRT uses plagiarism-detection tools as part of its editorial screening procedures. Similarity reports are evaluated contextually rather than treated as automatic evidence of misconduct. Where substantial concerns arise, editors may request clarification, supporting documentation, or revision. Confirmed violations may result in rejection, correction, retraction, or other appropriate editorial action, depending on the circumstances.

Research Integrity and Responsible Scholarship

Authors are responsible for the accuracy, reliability, and integrity of the research they submit. Research questions, methods, sources, arguments, evidence, and conclusions must be presented faithfully, without fabrication, falsification, selective misrepresentation, or misleading omission.

Authors are expected to:

• Represent research materials, sources, evidence, and findings accurately.
• Provide sufficient methodological information to enable scholarly evaluation of their arguments and interpretations.
• Acknowledge relevant primary and secondary sources through accurate and consistent citation.
• Identify significant limitations, uncertainties, and interpretive disagreements when relevant to their conclusions.
• Obtain appropriate ethical approval and informed consent where required by the nature and jurisdiction of the research.
• Respect applicable copyright, intellectual property, confidentiality, and research-data protection requirements.

Studies involving human participants, including interviews, ethnographic fieldwork, surveys, or research with identifiable individuals, must comply with applicable ethical requirements. Where institutional review or ethical approval is required, authors must provide the relevant information. Where an exemption applies, its basis should be explained when requested by the editorial office.

Research involving religious communities, sacred materials, oral traditions, or culturally sensitive knowledge should demonstrate appropriate contextual understanding and responsible representation. Authors must distinguish documented evidence from interpretive claims and avoid unsupported generalisations about religious or cultural communities.

Conflicts of Interest and Funding Disclosure

Authors, reviewers, and editors must disclose relationships or circumstances that could reasonably be perceived as influencing their research, scholarly judgement, or editorial responsibilities. The existence of a competing interest does not necessarily indicate misconduct, but transparent disclosure is essential to maintaining confidence in the publication process.

Relevant competing interests may include:

• Financial support, consulting arrangements, or other material relationships.
• Institutional, organisational, or professional affiliations relevant to the manuscript.
• Personal, supervisory, collaborative, or competitive relationships.
• Other commitments or interests that could compromise, or appear to compromise, impartial assessment.

Authors must disclose relevant research funding and, where applicable, the role of funders in the design, conduct, analysis, interpretation, or publication of the work. Reviewers and editors must inform the editorial office of potential conflicts and decline or withdraw from assignments when impartial assessment cannot reasonably be maintained.

Where an undisclosed conflict is identified, the journal may seek clarification and take proportionate action, including reassignment of editorial responsibilities, reconsideration of a review, or post-publication correction where necessary.

Use of Artificial Intelligence in Scholarly Work

CPRT recognises that artificial intelligence technologies, including generative AI systems and large language models, may be used in research and manuscript preparation. Such use must be transparent, academically responsible, and consistent with the journal's requirements for originality, accurate attribution, research integrity, and author accountability.

Authors who use AI tools in preparing a manuscript must:

• Disclose the use of AI tools and explain their purpose and extent where relevant to manuscript preparation or research methods.
• Verify the accuracy of AI-assisted statements, references, quotations, translations, and interpretations.
• Ensure that AI-generated or AI-assisted material does not introduce fabricated citations, unsupported claims, plagiarism, or misleading representations of sources.
• Retain full intellectual responsibility for the research design, analysis, scholarly arguments, and conclusions presented in the manuscript.

AI systems cannot be listed as authors or recognised as responsible contributors because they cannot assume scholarly accountability, approve a manuscript, or accept responsibility for its integrity. The use of AI tools does not relieve human authors of their ethical and intellectual obligations.

Editors and reviewers must also protect the confidentiality of unpublished manuscripts. Manuscript content, confidential correspondence, and review materials must not be disclosed to external AI services in ways that compromise confidentiality, intellectual property, or applicable data-protection obligations.

Corrections, Expressions of Concern, and Retractions

CPRT recognises that maintaining the integrity of the scholarly record requires appropriate responses to errors, unreliable findings, and substantiated concerns about published research. Post-publication concerns are assessed according to their nature, seriousness, supporting evidence, and potential implications for the reliability of the published work.

Depending on the circumstances, the journal may take the following actions:

• Corrections: Issued when errors require amendment but do not fundamentally invalidate the principal findings, arguments, or conclusions of the published work.
• Expressions of Concern: Published when substantial concerns about the reliability or integrity of an article remain unresolved and readers should be informed while further assessment is undertaken or clarification is sought.
• Retractions: Issued when reliable evidence establishes that a publication is fundamentally unreliable, contains serious ethical violations, constitutes redundant publication, or is otherwise affected by circumstances warranting removal from the body of reliable scholarly findings.

Retraction may be warranted in cases involving fabrication, falsification, plagiarism, serious ethical violations, or major errors that invalidate the article's central conclusions. A retraction does not necessarily imply deliberate misconduct; it may also be required when substantial unintentional errors undermine the reliability of the publication.

Corrections, expressions of concern, and retraction notices should clearly identify the affected publication and explain the reason for the editorial action. Retraction notices should remain publicly accessible, and the original publication record should ordinarily be preserved with a clear indication of its retracted status, subject to exceptional legal, privacy, or safety considerations.

Complaints, Appeals, and Ethical Concerns

CPRT provides procedures for addressing complaints concerning editorial conduct, peer review, research integrity, and publication ethics. Authors and other relevant parties may submit substantiated concerns to the editorial office for consideration.

Authors wishing to appeal an editorial decision should provide a written explanation identifying the decision under appeal and the specific procedural or substantive grounds for reconsideration. Appeals should be supported by relevant information rather than disagreement with an editorial decision alone.

Appeals are reviewed independently of the original decision-making process. Where appropriate, the journal may consult an editor who was not involved in the initial decision or seek additional independent advice. The purpose of an appeal is to assess whether a material error, procedural irregularity, or significant oversight may have affected the outcome.

Complaints alleging ethical misconduct or inappropriate editorial behaviour are examined fairly and with due regard for confidentiality, procedural consistency, and the rights of the parties involved. Where necessary, the journal may request documentation, seek institutional clarification, or take proportionate corrective action. Confidentiality is maintained to the extent compatible with a fair and effective investigation.

Publisher Responsibilities

The publisher is responsible for supporting the journal's editorial infrastructure, publication processes, and commitment to responsible scholarly communication. The publisher must respect editorial independence and ensure that financial or business interests do not improperly influence manuscript assessment, editorial decisions, or the handling of publication-ethics concerns.

The publisher is committed to transparency concerning journal ownership, publishing arrangements, applicable publication charges, and relevant institutional responsibilities. Editorial policies, author instructions, and publication conditions should be communicated accurately and made accessible to prospective contributors and readers.

The publisher works with the editorial team to address ethical concerns, maintain accurate publication records, support appropriate post-publication actions, and promote the accessibility and continuity of published scholarly content.

Commitment to Ethical Scholarship

CPRT regards publication ethics as an essential foundation of credible comparative scholarship. Research involving philosophical and religious traditions requires intellectual honesty, careful contextual interpretation, acknowledgement of relevant sources, and recognition of the diversity and complexity of the communities and traditions under examination.

The journal encourages critical disagreement, constructive scholarly debate, and the reassessment of established interpretations. Such engagement should be grounded in reasoned argument and evidence, conducted with respect for intellectual differences, and consistent with the responsibilities of academic research and publication.