Peer review serves as a critical mechanism for assessing the originality, conceptual coherence, methodological appropriateness, evidential foundation, and scholarly significance of submitted research. The process also provides authors with constructive feedback intended to strengthen their arguments, interpretations, and engagement with relevant intellectual traditions.

CPRT publishes two regular issues annually, in June and December, and operates an Online First publication model. Accepted articles may be published online following completion of the required editorial and production procedures before their formal assignment to a scheduled issue.

This policy explains the principal stages of manuscript submission, editorial screening, handling-editor assignment, double-anonymous external peer review, editorial decision-making, revision, final acceptance, and publication. It also establishes the journal's expectations concerning review timelines, editorial independence, and ethical oversight.

Submission

Authors must submit manuscripts through the journal's official online submission system. Before submitting, authors should ensure that their work falls within CPRT's Aims & Scope and complies with the relevant requirements established in the Submission Guidelines, Article Types, and Publication Ethics Policy.

For research manuscripts subject to double-anonymous peer review, a complete submission must include:

• An anonymous manuscript: A complete research manuscript with author-identifying information removed from the review file and associated document metadata.
• A separate title page: The manuscript title, author names, institutional affiliations, corresponding-author details, and other relevant identifying information.
• An abstract and keywords: An abstract of no more than 300 words and four to six keywords, in accordance with the journal's submission requirements.
• A complete bibliography: References prepared in accordance with The Chicago Manual of Style, 17th edition, Notes and Bibliography system.
• Required declarations: Relevant statements concerning originality, authorship, competing interests, funding, ethics approval, AI use, and data availability.
• Supplementary materials: Additional documentation or research materials where necessary for editorial assessment.

Authors are responsible for ensuring that all co-authors have approved the submission, that the manuscript is not under simultaneous consideration elsewhere, and that any relevant earlier dissemination has been disclosed. Research involving no newly generated datasets must still include an appropriate Data Availability Statement.

Following successful completion of the submission procedure, the journal's submission system normally generates a confirmation notification. This notification establishes that the manuscript has been registered for editorial processing; it does not constitute acceptance for external peer review or publication.

Authors should consult the Submission Process policy for detailed instructions concerning manuscript files, metadata, declarations, and the operation of the journal's submission system.

Initial Editorial Screening

Every submitted manuscript undergoes initial editorial screening before it is considered for external peer review. This assessment is conducted by the Editor-in-Chief, a designated Associate Editor, or another authorised editor with appropriate responsibility for the submission.

The screening process examines the following matters:

• Relevance to the journal: Whether the subject, research objectives, and scholarly contribution fall within CPRT's Aims & Scope.
• Originality and scholarly significance: Whether the manuscript presents a sufficiently developed and identifiable contribution to existing research.
• Conceptual and methodological quality: Whether the research problem, theoretical approach, and supporting arguments are sufficiently clear for meaningful scholarly evaluation.
• Manuscript preparation: Compliance with the selected article category, relevant word limits, anonymisation, reference style, and submission documentation.
• Research and publication ethics: The presence of required declarations and any preliminary concerns involving authorship, research integrity, copyright, or ethical compliance.
• Textual similarity: Potential inappropriate overlap, plagiarism, or redundant publication, assessed using available screening tools and contextual editorial judgement.

Possible Screening Outcomes

Following initial screening, the responsible editor may:

• Advance the manuscript for handling-editor assignment and external peer review.
• Request technical corrections or missing submission documentation.
• Request clarification concerning the manuscript's scope, originality, or ethical declarations.
• Decline the manuscript without external review where it does not meet the journal's minimum requirements.

A decision to decline a manuscript during initial screening is commonly referred to as a desk rejection. Such a decision may reflect insufficient relevance, inadequate scholarly development, serious presentation deficiencies, or another substantial concern. It does not necessarily indicate research misconduct.

Assignment to Handling Editor

Manuscripts that pass initial screening are assigned to a Handling Editor with appropriate expertise in the subject matter, research methodology, or intellectual traditions examined in the submission.

The Handling Editor is responsible for coordinating the scholarly assessment of the manuscript. This includes:

• Assessing the specialist expertise required for a competent review.
• Identifying and inviting appropriately qualified independent reviewers.
• Considering potential conflicts of interest involving reviewers or other participants in the editorial process.
• Maintaining the confidentiality and integrity of the double-anonymous assessment process.
• Monitoring review progress and arranging additional assessment where justified.
• Evaluating review reports and providing reasoned recommendations to the responsible decision-making editor.

Reviewer selection should reflect the requirements of the manuscript. Comparative research may require expertise extending across more than one philosophical or religious tradition, while specialised textual studies may benefit from reviewers familiar with relevant source languages, historical contexts, or interpretive methods.

The Handling Editor must disclose any competing interest that could compromise the independence of editorial assessment. Where a significant conflict exists, the manuscript should be reassigned or another appropriate arrangement established.

Handling-editor responsibilities support the review process but do not override the final editorial authority of the Editor-in-Chief or another editor formally authorised to make decisions on behalf of the journal.

Double-Anonymous Peer Review

CPRT employs a double-anonymous peer-review system for research manuscripts. Under this model, the journal seeks to conceal author identities from reviewers and reviewer identities from authors throughout the formal evaluation process.

Research Articles and other substantive research manuscripts selected for external review are normally assessed by at least two independent expert reviewers. Reviewers are appointed according to their subject expertise, methodological competence, independence, and suitability for evaluating the research.

Anonymity and Confidentiality

The journal's double-anonymous review arrangements require that:

• Authors prepare review manuscripts without identifying information.
• Reviewer identities are not disclosed to authors through ordinary review correspondence.
• Reviewers treat manuscripts and related information as confidential.
• Reviewers do not attempt to identify or directly contact authors concerning a manuscript under review.
• Potential identity disclosures or relevant conflicts of interest are reported promptly to the Handling Editor.

Double-anonymous review is intended to reduce identity-related influence on scholarly evaluation. Because a manuscript's subject matter, previous dissemination, or references may sometimes permit informed identification, anonymity cannot be guaranteed in every circumstance. The journal nevertheless expects all participants to respect the confidentiality requirements of the process.

Scholarly Evaluation Criteria

Reviewers are asked to evaluate the manuscript according to the following criteria:

• Originality and scholarly contribution: Whether the research advances an identifiable philosophical argument, interpretation, theoretical perspective, or other significant contribution to the field.
• Conceptual clarity and rigour: Whether the manuscript defines its key concepts, develops coherent arguments, and maintains appropriate philosophical distinctions.
• Comparative depth: Whether the selection of intellectual traditions, texts, or concepts is justified and whether similarities and differences are analysed critically.
• Engagement with scholarship: Whether the study engages relevant primary materials, scholarly literature, and significant competing interpretations.
• Methodological coherence: Whether the analytical or interpretive approach is appropriate to the research question and applied consistently.
• Textual and historical accuracy: Whether primary sources, editions, translations, and historical contexts are presented accurately.
• Scholarly presentation: Whether the research is clearly organised, appropriately documented, and presented in a form suitable for academic publication.

Reviewers should take account of the distinctive character of philosophical and humanities scholarship. Purely conceptual or textual research should not be assessed against empirical data requirements that are not relevant to its methodology. Similarly, the journal expects empirical or interdisciplinary submissions to provide the research documentation appropriate to their actual methods.

Additional Review and Divergent Reports

Where review reports contain materially conflicting recommendations, raise unresolved methodological concerns, or reveal a need for specialist expertise, the Handling Editor may invite an additional independent reviewer or seek further scholarly advice.

A difference between reviewer recommendations does not automatically require additional review. The responsible editor may evaluate the reasoning and evidence underlying the reports and determine whether the available assessments provide a sufficient basis for decision-making.

Commissioned Book Reviews may be evaluated editorially, without the full external research-article review procedure. Other contribution types follow the assessment arrangements applicable to their category under the Article Types policy.

Editorial Decision

Following completion of the applicable review process, the Editor-in-Chief or another duly authorised responsible editor evaluates the review reports, the Handling Editor's assessment, and the manuscript's conformity with the journal's scholarly and ethical requirements.

The principal editorial outcomes are:

• Accept: The manuscript meets the journal's academic and editorial requirements and may proceed to the publication process, subject to any remaining production or administrative requirements.
• Minor Revision: The manuscript is potentially suitable for publication but requires limited corrections or clarification before a final decision can be made.
• Major Revision: The manuscript presents potentially valuable scholarship but requires substantial changes to its arguments, theoretical framework, methods, source interpretation, or presentation.
• Reject: The manuscript does not meet the standards or requirements for publication and will not proceed under the current submission.

Authors receive a formal decision notification through the journal's editorial procedures. Where applicable, the notification includes anonymised reviewer comments, editorial observations, and instructions concerning any required revision.

Reviewer recommendations are advisory. The editor remains responsible for evaluating their scholarly reasoning and determining the final outcome. A manuscript is not accepted or rejected solely through a numerical majority of reviewer recommendations.

A decision requiring revision does not guarantee subsequent acceptance. The final outcome depends on the adequacy of the revised manuscript, its response to substantive concerns, and any additional editorial or peer-review assessment considered necessary.

Revision Stage

Authors invited to revise a manuscript must address the comments and requirements communicated in the editorial decision letter. Revisions should respond directly to the substantive concerns identified during review and provide sufficient information for the editorial team to assess the changes.

Revision Periods

The normal indicative periods for author revisions are:

• Minor Revision: Approximately 2–3 weeks.
• Major Revision: Approximately 4–6 weeks.

The specific deadline provided in the decision letter governs the individual revision. Authors who require additional time should contact the editorial office before the deadline and explain the circumstances requiring an extension.

Required Revision Materials

A revised submission should include:

• A revised manuscript: An updated version incorporating the required changes while maintaining appropriate anonymisation.
• A point-by-point response: A detailed account of how each reviewer and editorial comment has been addressed.
• Explanations of disagreements: A scholarly justification where the authors consider a requested change inappropriate or inconsistent with the research.
• Updated supporting materials: Revised tables, figures, translations, appendices, declarations, or other documents where relevant.

Authors should identify substantive changes clearly and provide references to the relevant sections or passages in the revised manuscript. Where a reviewer recommendation is not adopted, the response should explain the reason through evidence and scholarly argument rather than dismissing the concern without analysis.

Reassessment of Revised Manuscripts

The Handling Editor assesses the revised manuscript and accompanying response. Depending on the extent and nature of the changes, the revision may be evaluated editorially or returned to the original reviewers for further assessment.

Additional review rounds may be required where significant methodological, theoretical, textual, or ethical concerns remain unresolved. The journal may also invite another qualified reviewer if additional expertise is necessary.

The editorial office may discontinue consideration of a submission when required revisions are not provided within the specified or approved period. Authors will be informed of the applicable editorial or administrative outcome.

Final Acceptance and Publication

A manuscript receives formal acceptance when the responsible editor determines that the required scholarly assessment has been completed and the manuscript satisfies the journal's applicable academic, ethical, and editorial standards.

Formal acceptance establishes the manuscript's eligibility to enter publication production. It does not mean that the article has already been published or that the final publication files have been approved.

Following acceptance, the article normally proceeds through:

• Editorial verification: Confirmation of the final accepted text, required declarations, publication metadata, and applicable documentation.
• Copyediting: Examination of language, terminology, references, consistency, and editorial presentation.
• Typesetting: Preparation of the article in the publication formats supported by the journal.
• Author proof review: Examination and correction of publication proofs within the period specified by the editorial office.
• Final production approval: Verification that the publication files and relevant metadata are ready for release.
• Online publication: Release of the article through the journal's official website following completion of the applicable requirements.

Authors are responsible for examining proofs carefully and identifying factual, typographical, bibliographic, or production-related errors promptly. Substantive changes to the research argument, evidence, or conclusions after acceptance require editorial approval and may necessitate additional scholarly review.

Online First and Issue Assignment

CPRT operates an Online First publication model to support timely dissemination of accepted scholarly research. Following completion of production and any applicable administrative requirements, accepted articles may be published online before their formal inclusion in a scheduled issue.

Articles published Online First are subsequently assigned to an appropriate regular issue. Relevant bibliographic metadata may be updated to reflect issue assignment while maintaining accurate identification and traceability of the published scholarly record.

The interval between acceptance, Online First publication, and final issue assignment depends on the completion of publication requirements and the journal's production schedule. No fixed publication date is guaranteed solely by the communication of an acceptance decision.

Indicative Timeline

CPRT seeks to provide timely editorial evaluation while preserving the independence and academic rigour of the review process. The periods below represent indicative processing times for research manuscripts following the journal's standard editorial and peer-review procedures.

Actual review duration may vary according to reviewer availability, manuscript complexity, the need for specialised expertise, the nature of requested revisions, and the number of additional assessment rounds.

CPRT aims to complete the editorial and peer-review process efficiently without compromising scholarly evaluation. The journal's indicative target of reaching a final decision within approximately 12 weeks in straightforward cases remains subject to the requirements of independent peer review and responsible editorial judgement.

Editorial Independence

CPRT maintains editorial independence in the evaluation and selection of scholarly manuscripts. Decisions concerning peer review, revision, acceptance, and rejection are based on academic merit, research integrity, methodological appropriateness, and relevance to the journal's scope.

The publisher supports the journal's operational and administrative activities but must not improperly influence scholarly evaluations or individual manuscript decisions. Editors are expected to act independently and manage competing interests that could compromise the integrity of their assessments.

The journal applies the following principles:

• Editorial decisions must be made without inappropriate commercial, institutional, personal, or political interference.
• The payment of an Article Processing Charge does not guarantee acceptance or affect the scholarly assessment of a manuscript.
• An author's request for an APC waiver or discount must not influence reviewer selection or editorial decisions.
• Manuscripts submitted by editors, editorial board members, or individuals with relevant relationships must be handled through arrangements that appropriately manage competing interests.
• Final decisions must reflect the applicable scholarly and ethical criteria rather than the financial interests of the journal or publisher.

The Editor-in-Chief retains responsibility for the journal's editorial standards and final decision-making arrangements. Where an editor has a relevant competing interest, the manuscript should be assigned to another appropriately qualified editor who can undertake the assessment independently.

Editorial independence also requires respect for legitimate philosophical disagreement and methodological diversity. Manuscripts should be evaluated according to the quality and defensibility of their scholarship rather than the personal religious beliefs, philosophical commitments, or institutional affiliations of their authors.

Ethical Oversight

CPRT is committed to maintaining the integrity of the scholarly record and conducting fair, proportionate assessments when concerns arise concerning submitted or published research. Ethical oversight applies throughout the manuscript evaluation and publication process.

Matters that may require editorial investigation include:

• Suspected plagiarism or substantial undisclosed reuse of published material.
• Duplicate submission, redundant publication, or misleading disclosure of previous versions.
• Fabricated or falsified data, quotations, references, translations, or archival materials.
• Materially misleading or undisclosed use of artificial intelligence technologies.
• Authorship disputes, undisclosed competing interests, or inadequate ethical declarations.
• Unauthorised disclosure of confidential manuscript information or manipulation of the peer-review process.
• Inappropriate use of copyrighted, confidential, or ethically restricted research materials.

Handling Ethical Concerns

When an ethical concern is identified, the editorial team considers its nature, relevance, seriousness, and available evidence. Where appropriate, the journal may conduct a preliminary assessment, request clarification from the authors, seek additional documentation, or consult suitably qualified experts.

Appropriate editorial actions may include:

• Requesting explanations, corrected declarations, or supporting evidence.
• Temporarily suspending editorial processing while a material concern is examined.
• Arranging additional independent scholarly or ethical assessment.
• Declining a manuscript where serious unresolved issues make publication inappropriate.
• Issuing a correction, expression of concern, or retraction where justified after publication.
• Referring serious or substantiated concerns to a relevant institution or other appropriate body where warranted.

Ethical allegations must be evaluated carefully and should not be treated as established misconduct without appropriate supporting evidence. Authors should ordinarily be afforded a reasonable opportunity to respond to material concerns. The journal must distinguish deliberate misconduct from honest error, legitimate scholarly disagreement, and correctable administrative deficiencies.

Textual similarity scores, unusual linguistic patterns, and automated AI-content detection results must not be treated as conclusive evidence of wrongdoing without contextual examination.

CPRT expects editors and reviewers to maintain the confidentiality of unpublished manuscripts, review reports, and editorial correspondence. Such materials must not be uploaded or disclosed to external AI services without appropriate authorisation and safeguards.

Authors and reviewers should consult the journal's Publication Ethics Policy, Author Ethical Requirements, Reviewer Guidelines, and AI Use Policy for further details concerning research integrity, professional responsibilities, and the handling of ethical concerns.