Reviewers contribute to the quality of scholarly publishing by assessing the originality, conceptual coherence, methodological appropriateness, evidential foundation, and intellectual significance of submitted manuscripts. Their evaluations help editors make informed decisions and provide authors with guidance for strengthening their research.

These guidelines establish the expectations governing the purpose of peer review, reviewer responsibilities, evaluation criteria, ethical conduct, competing interests, artificial intelligence, report preparation, review timelines, reviewer recognition, and scholarly integrity. Reviewers are expected to follow these requirements when accepting and completing assignments for CPRT.

Purpose of Peer Review

The peer-review process serves to evaluate manuscripts according to their scholarly merits and to support the development of rigorous, original, and responsible academic research. In a journal devoted to comparative philosophy and religious traditions, this process requires particular attention to conceptual distinctions, interpretive methods, historical contexts, and the treatment of intellectual traditions.

Peer review seeks to:

• Evaluate scholarly quality: Assess whether the manuscript meets appropriate standards of originality, conceptual precision, methodological rigour, and academic significance.
• Support intellectual contribution: Determine whether the research advances understanding of philosophical problems, religious traditions, comparative methodologies, or related scholarly debates.
• Strengthen argumentation: Identify weaknesses in reasoning, interpretation, evidence, or organisation and recommend feasible improvements.
• Encourage scholarly dialogue: Promote informed engagement with different philosophical, religious, methodological, and cultural perspectives.
• Uphold research integrity: Identify potential concerns involving source attribution, factual accuracy, textual authenticity, research ethics, or the responsible presentation of scholarly evidence.

Double-Anonymous Peer Review

CPRT employs a double-anonymous peer-review system for research manuscripts. Under this arrangement, the journal seeks to conceal reviewer and author identities from one another throughout the formal review process. Research Articles that pass initial editorial screening are evaluated by at least two independent reviewers with relevant scholarly expertise.

Reviewers must respect the anonymity arrangements established by the journal. They should not attempt to identify authors through unnecessary investigation, contact authors directly about a manuscript under review, or disclose their own identities in review comments intended for authors.

If a reviewer recognises or reasonably suspects the identity of an author, the reviewer should inform the handling editor, particularly where this information may give rise to a competing interest. The editor will determine whether the reviewer can continue the assignment.

Certain contribution types, including commissioned Book Reviews, may follow editorial assessment arrangements rather than the standard external research-article review process. Such arrangements are described separately in the journal's Article Types and Peer Review Process policies.

Reviewer Responsibilities

Reviewers are entrusted with unpublished scholarly work and are expected to exercise professional competence, impartiality, discretion, and respect throughout the review process. Accepting a review invitation constitutes an agreement to undertake the assessment responsibly and within the terms communicated by the editorial office.

Reviewers are expected to:

• Provide objective assessments: Evaluate manuscripts on the basis of evidence, reasoning, scholarly contribution, and appropriate disciplinary standards.
• Offer constructive feedback: Identify substantive strengths and weaknesses and explain concerns in terms that authors can understand and address.
• Assess within their expertise: Accept assignments only when they possess sufficient knowledge to conduct a fair and informed evaluation.
• Maintain confidentiality: Protect unpublished manuscripts, associated research materials, review communications, and editorial information.
• Declare competing interests: Disclose relationships or circumstances that could compromise, or reasonably appear to compromise, impartial judgement.
• Respect agreed deadlines: Complete reviews within the period established by the journal or notify the editorial office promptly when difficulties arise.
• Exercise scholarly independence: Avoid allowing personal preferences, institutional interests, ideological commitments, or academic competition to determine recommendations.
• Respect editorial procedures: Submit review reports through the designated review system and communicate concerns through the appropriate editorial channels.

Accepting or Declining an Invitation

Before accepting an invitation, reviewers should consider whether the manuscript falls sufficiently within their expertise, whether they can meet the requested deadline, and whether any competing interest may affect their independence.

A reviewer who is unable to provide a competent assessment or cannot complete the review within the agreed period should inform the editorial office promptly. If the reviewer discovers an important limitation or competing interest after accepting the invitation, the editor should be notified without delay.

Reviewers must not delegate an assigned review to another person, involve students or colleagues in examining the manuscript, or circulate the material to additional readers without prior authorisation from the handling editor and appropriate confidentiality safeguards.

Evaluation Criteria

CPRT asks reviewers to examine submitted manuscripts in relation to their research objectives, disciplinary context, methodological approach, and intended scholarly contribution. Evaluation should address the manuscript's substantive quality rather than rely primarily on stylistic preferences or the reviewer's agreement with its conclusions.

In comparative research, reviewers should examine whether the author has clearly defined the comparative question, justified the selection of traditions and sources, explained the basis of conceptual comparison, and interpreted relevant materials within their linguistic, historical, and intellectual contexts.

Originality and Contribution

Reviewers should assess whether the manuscript offers a meaningful contribution to comparative philosophy, religious studies, or related areas of scholarship.

• Does the manuscript identify an important and clearly formulated research problem?
• Does it advance an original philosophical argument, interpretation, or analytical perspective?
• Is its contribution distinguishable from existing scholarship?
• Does the manuscript explain the broader significance of its findings or conclusions?
• Is the contribution appropriate to the article category and the journal's academic scope?

Originality may take different forms across the journal's disciplines. A contribution may be original because it develops a new argument, revisits a significant interpretation, establishes a previously neglected relationship, introduces relevant textual evidence, or provides a methodologically justified reassessment of an established debate.

Conceptual Clarity and Rigour

Reviewers should examine the clarity, logical organisation, and intellectual defensibility of the manuscript's central concepts and arguments.

• Are the principal concepts and theoretical assumptions clearly explained?
• Is the argument logically coherent and adequately developed?
• Are key distinctions maintained consistently throughout the analysis?
• Is the comparative framework sufficiently justified?
• Does the manuscript acknowledge significant conceptual differences between the traditions being compared?

Reviewers should be attentive to arguments that depend on questionable conceptual equivalences, unexamined translations, or assumptions of similarity between traditions. Where such issues arise, the report should identify the precise difficulty and explain how the argument might be strengthened.

Engagement with Scholarship

Reviewers should evaluate whether the manuscript demonstrates an informed and critical understanding of relevant primary sources, established research, and major scholarly debates.

• Does the manuscript engage the most relevant scholarship for its stated research question?
• Are significant alternative interpretations or competing positions considered where appropriate?
• Are primary texts, translations, editions, and commentaries identified accurately?
• Are quotations and source references sufficiently precise to support verification?
• Does the manuscript follow the journal's required Chicago Notes and Bibliography citation system?

Reviewers should identify important omissions that materially affect the research argument or its relationship to existing scholarship. Recommendations for additional references should be justified by scholarly relevance.

Reviewers must not require authors to cite their own publications, the journal's publications, or the work of particular colleagues merely to increase citation counts. Any recommended citation must have a clear and defensible connection to the manuscript's scholarly argument.

Methodological Soundness

Reviewers should determine whether the research methods, interpretive procedures, and evidential foundations are appropriate to the manuscript's objectives.

• Is the selected methodological approach appropriate to the research question?
• Are the reasons for selecting particular traditions, thinkers, texts, or cases explained?
• Are textual interpretations supported by identifiable passages, editions, or other relevant sources?
• Does the manuscript recognise relevant linguistic, cultural, historical, and philosophical differences?
• Are significant limitations or alternative explanations adequately addressed?
• Where empirical methods are employed, are the procedures and supporting evidence described sufficiently for scholarly evaluation?

CPRT recognises methodological diversity across philosophical and religious scholarship. Reviewers should evaluate manuscripts according to the requirements of their actual research approaches and should not impose empirical, quantitative, or experimental criteria on purely conceptual or textual studies where those criteria are not applicable.

In Comparative Text Studies, particular attention should be given to source editions, translation decisions, textual variants, historical transmission, and the relationship between close reading and the broader comparative argument.

Scholarly Presentation

Reviewers should assess whether the manuscript communicates its research clearly and effectively.

• Is the manuscript organised around a coherent research objective and argument?
• Are its sections logically connected and appropriately developed?
• Is the academic language sufficiently clear and precise?
• Are technical terms, transliterations, figures, and tables presented consistently?
• Do the abstract and conclusions accurately represent the manuscript's central contribution?

Reviewers should distinguish weaknesses that affect the substance of the research from matters that can be resolved through language editing, reference correction, or production-stage improvements. Scholarly evaluation should not be reduced to stylistic preferences.

Ethical Responsibilities

Reviewers must comply with the journal's Publication Ethics Policy and exercise appropriate professional responsibility when evaluating unpublished scholarly work. Manuscripts supplied for peer review are confidential materials and must be treated as such throughout and after the assignment.

Reviewers must:

• Protect confidentiality: Refrain from disclosing manuscripts, research materials, unpublished arguments, or confidential editorial correspondence to unauthorised persons.
• Respect unpublished work: Avoid using information, ideas, evidence, or findings obtained through peer review for personal research, professional advantage, or another unauthorised purpose.
• Maintain professional conduct: Provide reasoned criticism without personal attacks, discriminatory statements, intimidation, or disrespectful language.
• Avoid improper citation demands: Recommend additional literature only when its inclusion is justified by the needs of the research.
• Declare ethical concerns: Inform the handling editor when significant concerns arise concerning plagiarism, redundant publication, fabricated evidence, misleading attribution, or other potential research misconduct.
• Respect reviewer anonymity: Avoid including identifying details in author-facing reports or attachments.

Reporting Potential Research Misconduct

If a reviewer identifies a credible concern regarding the originality, authenticity, ethical conduct, or evidential reliability of a manuscript, the concern should be communicated privately to the handling editor through the designated confidential channel.

Reviewers should identify the specific material or circumstances underlying the concern and provide supporting information where possible. Allegations must not be presented as established facts unless adequately substantiated.

Reviewers must not independently contact an author's institution, circulate allegations publicly, or undertake investigative actions outside their review role without appropriate editorial authorisation. The editor is responsible for determining whether further assessment is warranted under the journal's publication-ethics procedures.

A similarity score, disputed interpretation, unusual writing style, or automated AI-detection result must not be treated as conclusive evidence of misconduct without appropriate contextual examination.

Conflict of Interest

Reviewers must disclose relationships or interests that could compromise, or reasonably appear to compromise, the independence of their assessments. Such interests may be financial, professional, institutional, personal, intellectual, or otherwise related to the submitted work or its likely authors.

Circumstances requiring disclosure may include:

• Personal relationships: Family relationships, close friendships, significant personal disputes, or other relationships involving an author.
• Professional relationships: Recent research collaboration, supervisory relationships, shared projects, or close professional associations.
• Institutional relationships: Current or recent institutional affiliation overlap that may materially affect independence.
• Financial interests: Funding arrangements, employment relationships, consultancy activities, or other financial interests relevant to the manuscript.
• Academic competition: Circumstances involving direct research competition or other interests that could materially affect impartial evaluation.
• Other competing interests: Any circumstance in which the reviewer's professional judgement could reasonably be questioned.

Reviewers should disclose relevant circumstances before accepting an invitation or promptly after discovering them. The handling editor will determine whether the reviewer should decline, withdraw, or continue the assignment with appropriate safeguards.

A general philosophical disagreement, difference in religious belief, or competing theoretical position does not automatically constitute a disqualifying conflict of interest. Reviewers must nevertheless remain capable of evaluating arguments fairly and according to scholarly evidence.

A reviewer who cannot maintain impartiality should decline the assignment. Disclosure is essential because the existence and seriousness of a competing interest may not always be apparent to the editorial office.

Use of Artificial Intelligence

CPRT recognises the increasing use of artificial intelligence technologies in scholarly research and publishing. However, the confidentiality of unpublished manuscripts and the independence of expert judgement impose particular restrictions on the use of AI during peer review.

Reviewers must not upload or disclose confidential manuscripts, manuscript extracts, unpublished research materials, review reports, or editorial correspondence to external AI systems or third-party services without explicit editorial authorisation and appropriate safeguards.

Reviewers must observe the following principles:

• Confidentiality: Unpublished manuscripts and related materials must not be submitted to generative AI tools, automated evaluation services, or other external systems without appropriate authorisation.
• Independent scholarly judgement: Reviewers must personally examine the manuscript and formulate their evaluations on the basis of their own disciplinary knowledge and professional assessment.
• No automated substitution: AI-generated assessments must not replace independent expert evaluation or be presented as the reviewer's own scholarly judgement without appropriate examination.
• Data and intellectual property protection: Reviewers must respect the confidentiality, intellectual property rights, and applicable data-protection obligations associated with unpublished submissions.
• Transparency: Any exceptional, authorised use of AI in connection with an assigned review must be disclosed to the editorial office and remain consistent with the journal's applicable policies.

Reviewers should not use AI systems to generate substantive review reports in place of their own examination of the manuscript. AI-assisted language correction, where permitted, must not compromise confidentiality, introduce unsupported criticism, or alter the intended scholarly judgement.

Automated similarity assessment or AI-content detection cannot by itself establish plagiarism, inappropriate AI use, or other research misconduct. Reviewers should communicate specific, evidence-based concerns to the editor rather than rely on uncertain automated classifications.

Reviewers should consult the journal's AI Use Policy and Publication Ethics Policy for further information. These requirements apply throughout the review process, including after the reviewer has submitted the final report.

Review Format

Review reports should be clear, structured, evidence-based, and sufficiently detailed to assist both the editorial team and the authors. Reviewers are encouraged to distinguish matters requiring substantial revision from optional suggestions and minor presentation issues.

The following structure is recommended for substantive scholarly reviews.

Recommendations to the Editor

In addition to the written evaluation, reviewers are normally asked to recommend one of the following outcomes:

• Accept: The manuscript meets the relevant scholarly standards and requires no substantial further revision.
• Minor Revision: The manuscript is potentially suitable for publication following limited changes that do not substantially alter its central scholarly contribution.
• Major Revision: The manuscript contains potentially valuable scholarship but requires significant improvements to its arguments, evidence, methods, or interpretation.
• Reject: The manuscript has fundamental weaknesses, falls outside the journal's scope, or is otherwise unsuitable for publication in its current submission.

Reviewer recommendations should be consistent with the substantive assessment provided in the report. A recommendation should not rely on unsupported assertions or concerns that have not been adequately explained.

Comments to Authors and Confidential Comments to Editors

Comments intended for authors should focus on the scholarly merits of the manuscript and the specific changes necessary to strengthen it. They should be written in a professional and constructive manner and should not disclose the reviewer's identity.

Confidential comments to the editor may address matters requiring editorial attention, including substantial ethical concerns, competing interests, uncertainty about the reviewer's expertise, or other information that should not be communicated directly to authors before appropriate editorial assessment.

Reviewers should not place important scholarly criticisms exclusively in confidential comments while withholding the information authors would reasonably need to understand and address those concerns. Confidential communication is intended for appropriate editorial matters, not for unsupported criticism concealed from the authors.

Timelines

CPRT normally requests completion of an external peer-review evaluation within an indicative period of 4–6 weeks. The specific deadline communicated in an individual review invitation governs that assignment.

Reviewers should respond to invitations promptly so that editors can coordinate assignments without unnecessary delay. Individuals who cannot complete the review within the requested period are encouraged to decline the invitation or discuss a feasible alternative deadline with the editorial office.

During an accepted review assignment, reviewers should:

• Plan their assessment in accordance with the agreed deadline.
• Notify the handling editor as soon as a material delay becomes apparent.
• Request an extension where additional time is necessary for a responsible evaluation.
• Submit the completed report through the journal's review system.
• Inform the editor if unforeseen circumstances prevent completion of the assignment.

Review extensions may be granted at the discretion of the editorial office, taking account of the manuscript's requirements and the need to avoid unnecessary delays for authors.

The 4–6-week period is an indicative external review timeframe and should not be interpreted as a guaranteed deadline for the journal's first editorial decision. Overall processing time also depends on editorial screening, reviewer availability, editorial assessment, author revisions, and any subsequent review rounds. Further details are provided in the Peer Review Process policy.

Recognition of Reviewers

CPRT recognises the important contribution of peer reviewers to the quality, credibility, and development of scholarly publishing. Reviewer participation represents a form of academic service that requires specialised knowledge, careful judgement, professional time, and a commitment to intellectual integrity.

Subject to the journal's available arrangements and the protection of reviewer confidentiality, CPRT may:

• Publish general acknowledgements: Recognise the contribution of reviewers through annual or periodic acknowledgements without identifying the manuscripts they reviewed.
• Provide confirmation letters: Issue appropriate confirmation of completed review service upon request, subject to verification and the journal's administrative procedures.
• Support professional recognition: Participate in appropriate reviewer-recognition initiatives where such arrangements are available and compatible with confidentiality requirements.

Public acknowledgement of reviewers should respect individual preferences and should not disclose confidential manuscript information or reveal the association between a particular reviewer and a specific submission without appropriate authorisation.

Recognition or confirmation of review service does not entitle a reviewer to disclose the content of an unpublished manuscript, the substance of confidential review discussions, or the identity of another reviewer.

Reviewers seeking confirmation of their service or clarification of available recognition arrangements may contact the editorial office at [email protected].

Commitment to Scholarly Integrity

By accepting an invitation to review for CPRT, reviewers agree to uphold the journal's standards of fairness, confidentiality, scholarly rigour, intellectual independence, and responsible academic conduct. Reviewers are expected to approach manuscripts with professional openness while exercising critical judgement appropriate to the subject and methods of the research.

The journal recognises that scholarly disagreements are integral to philosophical and religious inquiry. Reviewers may challenge arguments, question interpretations, and identify methodological weaknesses, but their assessments must remain grounded in reasoned analysis and the relevant scholarly evidence.

CPRT expects the peer-review process to support:

• Independent and evidence-based scholarly evaluation.
• Responsible engagement with philosophical and religious diversity.
• Constructive criticism that assists authors in strengthening their research.
• Respect for confidentiality, intellectual property, and the integrity of unpublished scholarship.
• Transparent management of competing interests and potential ethical concerns.
• Fair consideration of diverse methodological, cultural, linguistic, and intellectual approaches.

Reviewers should consult the journal's Peer Review Process, Publication Ethics, AI Use Policy, and relevant editorial guidance when questions arise regarding their responsibilities. The editorial office remains responsible for administering review procedures and addressing concerns that may affect their integrity.