Authors are expected to familiarise themselves with the journal's Submission Guidelines, Article Types, Aims & Scope, and Publication Ethics Policy before submitting a manuscript. Compliance with these requirements helps facilitate timely editorial assessment and ensures that submitted work is prepared appropriately for scholarly evaluation.

This page explains the principal stages of the submission process, the documents required from authors, the responsibilities associated with revisions, and the transition from acceptance to publication. Research manuscripts are evaluated through double-anonymous peer review, while certain commissioned contributions, including Book Reviews, may follow the editorial assessment procedures described in the journal's Article Types policy.

Online Submission

All manuscripts must be submitted through the journal's official online submission system. The submission system provides the designated channel for manuscript registration, file submission, editorial correspondence, revision management, and communication of editorial decisions.

Authors must create or use an existing account in the submission system and provide accurate contact and affiliation information. The corresponding author is responsible for maintaining a valid email address and monitoring editorial notifications throughout the submission and review process.

Before completing a submission, authors should:

• Confirm that the manuscript falls within CPRT's Aims & Scope.
• Select the submission section corresponding to the intended article category.
• Check the relevant word limit and manuscript preparation requirements.
• Prepare all files and declarations required for editorial assessment.
• Ensure that the manuscript is not under simultaneous consideration by another journal or publisher.
• Confirm that all authors have approved the submission and that their information is accurately recorded.

Manuscripts submitted by ordinary email are not treated as formal submissions. Email correspondence may be used for editorial enquiries, technical assistance, or other communications requested by the editorial office, but it does not replace completion of the official submission procedure.

Required Documents

Authors must provide the documents and information necessary for the journal to assess the submission. For manuscripts subject to double-anonymous peer review, the main manuscript and the separate title page must be prepared so that identifying information is not disclosed in the review file.

The manuscript title, abstract, author information, and institutional affiliations entered in the submission metadata must be consistent with the corresponding submission documents. Authors should check these details carefully before completing the process.

Anonymous Manuscript

The main manuscript file must be prepared for double-anonymous review and should contain:

• The complete article title, without author-identifying information.
• An abstract of no more than 300 words and four to six keywords.
• The complete main text, including all relevant sections and subsections.
• Consecutively numbered footnotes and a complete bibliography.
• Tables, figures, textual examples, and other materials necessary to evaluate the scholarly argument, where applicable.
• Citations and references prepared according to The Chicago Manual of Style, 17th edition, Notes and Bibliography system.

The anonymous manuscript must not contain author names, institutional affiliations, identifying acknowledgements, or other information that unnecessarily reveals the identity of the authors. Authors should also review document properties, file metadata, comments, and tracked changes to remove identifying information.

References to the authors' own previously published work should be presented in a manner that preserves anonymity without compromising citation accuracy. Information removed solely for the purposes of peer review may be restored during the final editorial and production stages.

Title Page (Separate File)

A separate title page must be submitted to provide the editorial office with the information necessary for manuscript identification, author correspondence, and publication administration.

The title page must include:

• The full manuscript title.
• The full names of all authors, presented in the intended publication order.
• Institutional affiliations for all authors, where applicable.
• ORCID identifiers, where available.
• The name and contact information of the corresponding author.
• Acknowledgements, where applicable.
• Funding information and relevant grant details, where applicable.

Additional ethical declarations or supplementary documentation may be provided separately where required by the journal or requested by the editorial office. Authors should ensure that identifying files are not included in the materials made available to anonymous reviewers.

Submission Confirmation

After completing the required submission steps, the corresponding author should receive an automated confirmation notification from the journal's submission system. The confirmation indicates that the manuscript has been registered for editorial processing; it does not constitute acceptance for peer review or publication.

Authors should verify that the submission has been completed successfully and that the correct manuscript files and metadata have been provided. Submission status and subsequent editorial correspondence may be accessed through the author's account, subject to the functions available in the journal's submission system.

If an expected confirmation message has not been received, authors should first check their account and email filtering settings. Where a submission cannot be verified or a technical problem is encountered, the editorial office may be contacted for assistance.

Initial Editorial Screening

Following submission, manuscripts undergo initial editorial screening by the Editorial Office and the Editor-in-Chief or a designated editor. This assessment determines whether the manuscript meets the journal's fundamental requirements and is suitable for further scholarly evaluation.

Editorial screening includes consideration of:

• Scope: Relevance to comparative philosophy, religious traditions, and the journal's stated academic objectives.
• Scholarly quality: Originality, conceptual development, clarity of research questions, and potential contribution to existing scholarship.
• Manuscript preparation: Compliance with the relevant article category, length guidance, citation style, anonymisation, and submission documentation requirements.
• Research integrity: Appropriate attribution, originality, ethical declarations, and compliance with publication-ethics requirements.
• Similarity assessment: Examination of potential textual overlap through plagiarism-detection tools and contextual editorial evaluation.

Manuscripts that fall outside the journal's scope, lack sufficient scholarly development, or fail to meet essential editorial or ethical requirements may be declined without external peer review. Technical or administrative deficiencies may instead result in a request for corrections before further assessment.

Indicative screening period: 7–10 days.

Peer Review Assignment

Research manuscripts that pass initial screening are assigned to a handling editor and undergo double-anonymous external peer review. Research Articles are evaluated by at least two independent reviewers with appropriate expertise in the relevant philosophical, religious, historical, textual, or methodological subject areas.

Under the double-anonymous review model, author and reviewer identities are concealed from one another through the journal's formal review process. The editorial office is responsible for administering review assignments and maintaining appropriate confidentiality.

Reviewer selection is informed by:

• Subject expertise and familiarity with the intellectual traditions examined.
• Relevant research background and methodological competence.
• Independence from the authors and the absence of disqualifying competing interests.
• The ability to provide an appropriately informed and constructive assessment.

Authors may suggest potential reviewers when permitted by the submission system or requested by the editorial office. Suggested reviewers must be appropriately qualified and free from relationships that could compromise independent assessment. Authors must not nominate fictitious identities or provide misleading reviewer contact details.

Reviewer recommendations submitted by authors are advisory only. The editorial team retains full responsibility for reviewer selection and may appoint additional reviewers where specialised expertise or further evaluation is required.

Commissioned Book Reviews may be assessed editorially, in accordance with the journal's Article Types policy. Other scholarly contributions follow the review arrangements applicable to their categories. Authors should consult the Peer Review Process policy for further details.

Editorial Decision

Following receipt of the required review reports, the Editor-in-Chief or designated handling editor considers the reviewers' assessments alongside the manuscript's scholarly merits, relevance, methodological quality, and compliance with the journal's editorial standards.

The principal editorial decisions are:

• Accept: The manuscript satisfies the journal's scholarly and editorial requirements and may proceed to the publication process, subject to any remaining production requirements.
• Minor Revision: The manuscript is potentially suitable for publication, but specific and relatively limited changes are required before a final decision.
• Major Revision: Substantial changes are required to the manuscript's arguments, conceptual framework, methodological explanation, source interpretation, or overall scholarly presentation.
• Reject: The manuscript does not meet the requirements for publication or is not considered suitable for further revision under the current submission.

Authors receive an editorial decision notification accompanied, where applicable, by anonymised reviewer comments and editorial guidance. Review reports are considered an important basis for editorial judgement, but final decision-making authority remains with the responsible editor.

An invitation to revise does not constitute acceptance or guarantee subsequent publication. Manuscripts may require further evaluation following revision before a final editorial decision is reached.

Revision Submission

Authors invited to revise a manuscript must submit their revised materials through the journal's submission system within the period specified in the editorial decision letter. The revised submission should respond substantively to the comments provided by reviewers and editors.

The normal revision periods are:

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

A revised submission must include:

• Revised manuscript: An updated anonymous manuscript that incorporates the applicable revisions while maintaining the necessary review anonymisation.
• Point-by-point response: A detailed response explaining how each reviewer and editorial comment has been addressed.
• Supporting materials: Revised tables, figures, supplementary files, or other documentation when changes to these materials are necessary.

Authors should identify substantive changes clearly and explain any recommendations they have chosen not to adopt. Where disagreement arises, the response should provide a reasoned scholarly justification supported by relevant arguments, evidence, or sources.

Revised manuscripts may be assessed by the handling editor or returned to the original reviewers for further evaluation. Additional reviewers may be consulted where the revisions raise new substantive questions or specialised expertise is required.

Authors who require additional time should contact the editorial office before the revision deadline. Failure to submit the required materials within the specified period, without an approved extension, may result in administrative closure of the submission or discontinuation of editorial consideration. Authors will be informed of the applicable outcome.

Final Acceptance

A manuscript is formally accepted when the responsible editor determines that it satisfies the journal's scholarly, ethical, and editorial requirements. Formal acceptance is communicated through the journal's editorial procedures and marks the transition from manuscript evaluation to publication preparation.

The post-acceptance production process normally includes:

• Copyediting for linguistic accuracy, consistency, citations, and editorial presentation.
• Typesetting and preparation of the article for online publication.
• Verification of publication metadata and other required documentation.
• Author review of publication proofs.
• Final editorial and production verification before publication.

Authors are responsible for reviewing page proofs carefully and notifying the editorial office of any errors within the period specified in the production correspondence. Corrections at the proof stage should generally concern factual accuracy, typographical errors, references, and production-related issues.

Substantive changes to the manuscript's argument, research findings, or conclusions after acceptance require editorial approval and may necessitate additional scholarly assessment. Final acceptance does not eliminate the journal's responsibility to address significant ethical or factual concerns identified before publication.

Online First Publication

CPRT operates an Online First publication model to support timely dissemination of accepted scholarly research. Following completion of the required editorial, copyediting, typesetting, proofing, and production procedures, an article may be published online before its assignment to a regular journal issue.

Online First publication makes the article available through the journal's official website under its applicable open access and copyright arrangements. The published article record identifies the work and provides the relevant bibliographic information available at the time of publication.

Articles published Online First are subsequently assigned to an appropriate June or December issue according to the journal's publication schedule. Relevant publication metadata may be updated to reflect the final issue assignment while preserving the integrity and traceability of the scholarly record.

The time between acceptance, Online First publication, and issue assignment depends on completion of production requirements and the journal's publication schedule. An acceptance notification should not be interpreted as confirmation that the article has already been published.

Ethical Declarations at Submission

CPRT requires authors to provide accurate declarations concerning the originality, authorship, ethical status, and preparation of their submissions. These declarations form part of the journal's commitment to transparent and responsible scholarly publishing.

During submission, authors must confirm that:

• The manuscript represents original scholarly work and accurately acknowledges previously published or borrowed material.
• The submitted manuscript is not under simultaneous consideration elsewhere.
• All listed authors have approved the submission and agreed to their inclusion in the author list.
• Relevant financial, institutional, professional, or personal competing interests have been disclosed, including a declaration when no relevant competing interests exist.
• The use of artificial intelligence tools in manuscript preparation has been disclosed where applicable.
• Relevant research funding and institutional support have been accurately identified.
• Necessary permissions have been obtained for third-party copyrighted materials where required.
• Applicable ethical approval, informed consent, or exemption requirements have been satisfied for research involving human participants.

Authors remain responsible for the accuracy and integrity of all submitted materials, including references, translations, source interpretations, and statements assisted by artificial intelligence technologies.

Where the editorial office identifies missing or inconsistent declarations, authors may be asked to provide clarification or supporting documentation before the submission proceeds. Submissions involving significant ethical concerns may be subject to further investigation in accordance with the journal's Publication Ethics Policy.

Appeals

Authors who believe that an editorial decision has been affected by a material factual error, 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 requesting reconsideration.
• Address the relevant editorial concerns or reviewer comments substantively.
• Provide supporting information or evidence where appropriate.

Appeals are reviewed independently of the original editorial decision-making process. The review may involve consultation with an editor who was not responsible for the initial decision or additional scholarly advice where appropriate.

The purpose of an appeal is to determine whether a significant error or procedural concern warrants reconsideration. An appeal does not guarantee reversal of the original decision, further external review, or acceptance for publication.

Appeals and submission-related enquiries may be directed to the CPRT Editorial Office at [email protected].

Summary of Timeline

The following table provides indicative processing periods for research manuscripts proceeding through the standard editorial and peer-review process. Actual timelines may vary according to manuscript complexity, reviewer availability, revision requirements, and other editorial circumstances.