Three Teachings Studies: Confucianism, Daoism, and Buddhism (TTS) maintains a rigorous, independent, confidential, and academically responsible peer review process designed to evaluate the originality, scholarly significance, methodological or analytical quality, evidentiary reliability, and ethical integrity of submitted manuscripts. Research Articles ordinarily undergo double-blind peer review by at least two independent external reviewers. Other scholarly contributions may undergo editorial assessment or external specialist review according to their content and publication category. The journal's procedures are intended to ensure fair evaluation, constructive scholarly criticism, transparent editorial decision-making, and the continued reliability of the published academic record.

Purpose and Principles of Peer Review

Peer review provides independent scholarly assessment to inform editorial decisions and to help authors improve the quality, clarity, accuracy, and academic contribution of their manuscripts. TTS recognizes that appropriate evaluation standards may differ among philosophy, history, religious studies, philology, textual scholarship, anthropology, and other relevant fields.

The peer review process is guided by the following principles:

• Scholarly Independence: Manuscripts are evaluated according to their academic merit and relevance rather than the author's reputation, institutional position, financial circumstances, or unrelated personal characteristics.
• Relevant Expertise: Reviewers are selected according to their competence in the manuscript's subject, research methods, languages, historical sources, and disciplinary context.
• Evidence-Based Assessment: Evaluations should address the manuscript's arguments, interpretations, sources, methods, and scholarly contribution through reasoned criticism.
• Fairness and Impartiality: Reviews and editorial decisions must be free from improper discrimination, personal hostility, institutional favoritism, and unmanaged conflicts of interest.
• Confidentiality: Unpublished manuscripts, reviewer identities, review reports, and editorial communications must be handled according to the journal's confidentiality requirements.
• Constructive Scholarly Dialogue: Reviewers should identify strengths, limitations, and necessary improvements clearly and professionally.
• Editorial Accountability: Reviewers provide independent advice, while the responsible editor retains authority and accountability for editorial decisions.

Peer review supports scholarly quality but does not guarantee that every published argument, translation, interpretation, or finding is free from error. Authors remain responsible for their research, and published work remains open to subsequent scholarly evaluation.

Peer Review Model and Applicability

TTS ordinarily applies a double-blind, independent external peer review model to Research Articles. In this model, the journal seeks to conceal the identities of authors from reviewers and the identities of reviewers from authors throughout the review process.

Research Articles are ordinarily evaluated by at least two independent external reviewers. Reviewers are selected for their relevant scholarly expertise and capacity to provide an informed assessment of the manuscript.

Different contribution categories may receive the following forms of evaluation:

• Research Articles: Double-blind external peer review by at least two independent reviewers following initial editorial screening.
• Review Articles: Editorial assessment and, where appropriate, external specialist review of the article's scholarly coverage, critical synthesis, analytical contribution, and use of relevant literature.
• Book Reviews: Ordinarily assessed by the editorial team, with specialist consultation where the subject or evaluation requires additional expertise.
• Translation and Annotation: Editorial or specialist assessment of the source materials, translation accuracy, textual interpretation, annotations, and original scholarly contribution.
• Forum Contributions: Editorial evaluation or additional expert assessment according to the nature and scholarly significance of the contribution.
• Documents and Textual Notes: Editorial or specialist assessment of source identification, documentary reliability, textual interpretation, and scholarly value.
• Lectures: Invited or editorially curated contributions subject to appropriate scholarly and editorial evaluation before publication.

The journal may request external evaluation for contributions normally handled through editorial review when specialized expertise is necessary. Conversely, editorial review alone must not be represented as equivalent to independent external peer review.

The applicable evaluation procedure is determined by the manuscript's publication category, scholarly content, and editorial requirements. The journal seeks to represent the review status of its published content accurately.

Stage 1: Initial Editorial Screening

Indicative Duration: Approximately 1–2 weeks following initial submission.

All manuscripts undergo preliminary assessment by the editorial office before being considered for external review. This process determines whether a submission meets the journal's fundamental academic, ethical, and administrative requirements.

Initial screening may include consideration of:

• Alignment with the journal's aims, scope, and relevant scholarly disciplines.
• Originality and potential academic contribution.
• Clarity of the research question, argument, purpose, or scholarly approach.
• Adequacy of research evidence, source identification, and engagement with existing scholarship.
• Compliance with the journal's mandatory Chicago Notes and Bibliography citation system.
• Completeness of the manuscript, abstract, keywords, metadata, and relevant declarations.
• Appropriate anonymization where double-blind review applies.
• Potential concerns involving originality, attribution, research ethics, authorship, or competing interests.

TTS requires authors to conduct a preliminary similarity check before submission. The total similarity index must be below 15%, excluding references and bibliography. The editorial office may perform randomized similarity spot checks or targeted verification. Similarity percentages are evaluated in context and do not independently establish plagiarism.

Manuscripts may be returned for technical or documentary correction, advanced to external peer review, or declined without external review. Editorial rejection at this stage may occur when a submission falls outside the journal's scope, lacks sufficient scholarly contribution, contains fundamental deficiencies, or fails to meet essential ethical or editorial requirements.

An initial editorial rejection does not necessarily indicate that the research subject lacks academic value. It indicates that the submitted manuscript is unsuitable for further consideration by TTS in its present form.

Stage 2: Reviewer Selection and Assignment

Manuscripts approved for external review are assigned to qualified reviewers selected by the responsible editor. Reviewer selection emphasizes subject expertise, scholarly independence, methodological competence, linguistic suitability, and the ability to assess the manuscript within a reasonable timeframe.

The editorial office considers the following factors when selecting reviewers:

• Demonstrable expertise in the relevant religious, philosophical, historical, or cultural field.
• Familiarity with the primary sources, historical periods, languages, or research methods employed.
• Independence from the authors and absence of material competing interests.
• Relevant scholarly experience and capacity to produce a constructive evaluation.
• Availability to complete the review within the requested period.

Reviewers may be selected from different academic institutions, disciplinary backgrounds, and geographical regions where appropriate. Diversity of scholarly perspectives is encouraged, but it does not replace the requirements of relevant expertise and independence.

Authors may provide relevant information concerning potential reviewer conflicts when appropriate. Any reviewer suggestions are advisory only; the journal retains independent responsibility for reviewer selection and is not required to invite individuals proposed by authors.

The editorial office may verify reviewer identity, academic affiliation, expertise, and relevant relationships where necessary. False reviewer identities, misleading contact information, undisclosed coordination, and attempts to manipulate reviewer selection are prohibited.

Stage 3: Independent Scholarly Evaluation

Reviewers are expected to provide independent, reasoned, and sufficiently detailed assessments addressing the manuscript's strengths, limitations, and suitability for publication.

The principal review criteria include:

• Relevance: The manuscript's relationship to the study of Confucianism, Daoism, Buddhism, or relevant intellectual, historical, religious, and cultural developments.
• Originality and Significance: The extent to which the manuscript contributes new evidence, interpretations, arguments, analytical approaches, or critical synthesis to existing scholarship.
• Research Question and Argumentation: The clarity, coherence, and scholarly importance of the manuscript's central questions, hypotheses, interpretations, or arguments.
• Methodological and Analytical Rigor: The appropriateness of the research approach and the transparency with which evidence is examined and conclusions are developed.
• Primary Source Reliability: The accuracy of historical citations, classical textual references, manuscripts, archival records, translations, inscriptions, and other relevant source materials.
• Engagement with Scholarship: The relevance, balance, and adequacy of the manuscript's engagement with existing academic literature and competing scholarly interpretations.
• Historical and Cultural Context: The appropriateness of chronological, linguistic, institutional, regional, and cultural interpretation.
• Clarity and Organization: The readability, logical structure, terminology, and presentation of the scholarly discussion.
• Ethical and Documentary Compliance: The accuracy of citations, relevant disclosures, permissions, research ethics arrangements, and other publication requirements.

Review criteria are applied according to the nature of the manuscript. A philosophical article need not employ the same methods as an ethnographic investigation, textual edition, historical analysis, or musical study. Reviewers should assess whether the chosen approach is appropriate to the research question and established disciplinary standards.

Reviewers should distinguish essential scholarly concerns from optional improvements or stylistic preferences. Recommendations for additional citations must be relevant to the manuscript's argument and should not be used to manipulate citation counts or promote unrelated work.

Stage 4: Reviewer Reports and Editorial Decisions

Following evaluation, reviewers submit their reports and recommendations to the responsible editor. Reviewer recommendations may include:

• Accept: The manuscript is considered suitable for publication without substantive scholarly revision, subject to necessary editorial and production requirements.
• Minor Revision: The manuscript is broadly suitable but requires limited clarification, correction, documentation, or presentation improvements.
• Major Revision: Substantial changes to analysis, interpretation, evidence, argumentation, organization, or scholarly documentation are required before acceptance can be considered.
• Reject: The manuscript is not considered suitable for publication because of fundamental scholarly deficiencies, insufficient contribution, serious unresolved concerns, or other relevant editorial reasons.

Reviewer recommendations are advisory rather than binding. The responsible editor considers the available reports, the manuscript itself, any identified ethical concerns, and the journal's publication standards before making an editorial decision.

The editor may reach a decision that differs from an individual reviewer recommendation when supported by reasoned scholarly assessment. Where reports are substantially inconsistent, the editor may seek clarification, request additional independent review, or undertake further evaluation before determining the appropriate outcome.

Editorial decisions are communicated to the corresponding author through the journal's online submission system. Relevant anonymized reviewer comments may accompany the decision. Confidential reviewer identities and internal editorial communications are not ordinarily disclosed.

Stage 5: Revision and Re-Evaluation

Authors invited to revise their manuscripts are expected to address the relevant editorial and reviewer comments carefully and professionally. A revision request provides an opportunity for scholarly improvement but does not guarantee eventual acceptance.

Revised submissions should ordinarily include:

• A revised manuscript incorporating the relevant corrections and improvements.
• A point-by-point response to editorial and reviewer comments where requested.
• Explanations identifying major revisions and their location in the manuscript.
• Reasoned scholarly responses to recommendations that the authors have not adopted.
• Updated figures, tables, translations, references, supplementary files, or declarations where necessary.

Authors are not required to agree with every reviewer recommendation. However, disagreements should be explained using relevant evidence, methodological reasoning, textual interpretation, or established scholarship. Unsupported rejection of substantive concerns may affect the editorial decision.

Minor revisions may be assessed by the responsible editor when the required changes are limited and verifiable. Major revisions may be returned to the original reviewers or referred to additional specialists where substantial scholarly questions remain unresolved.

More than one revision round may be required. The editorial office may decline a manuscript if essential concerns remain unresolved after reasonable opportunities for revision or if subsequent evaluation identifies fundamental problems.

All revised manuscripts and response documents must be submitted through the journal's official online submission system using the existing manuscript record. Authors should not create a new submission for an ordinary revision or transmit revised manuscript files through standard editorial email.

Final Editorial Authority

The responsible editor evaluates the complete scholarly record of the submission, including the original manuscript, reviewer reports, author revisions, supplementary information, and any subsequent expert assessments.

The Editor-in-Chief has overall responsibility for the journal's scholarly editorial governance. Final manuscript decisions are made by the appropriately authorized editorial leadership, subject to applicable conflict-of-interest safeguards.

Editorial acceptance must be based on scholarly quality, originality, evidentiary reliability, ethical compliance, and suitability for publication. An author's academic position, institutional prestige, personal relationships, or ability to pay an Article Processing Charge must not determine acceptance.

Formal acceptance is effective only after the journal issues an official acceptance decision. Positive reviewer recommendations, completion of a revision, or informal correspondence do not independently constitute acceptance for publication.

Indicative Peer Review Timeline

TTS aims to provide timely scholarly evaluation while recognizing the demands of independent specialist review. The following timeframes are indicative and may vary according to reviewer availability, manuscript complexity, revision requirements, and other legitimate editorial considerations.

Timeframe Interpretation: The 8–12-week first-round review target is measured from the initial submission date and includes preliminary editorial screening. It is not an additional period beginning after the initial screening stage.

The four-week reviewer deadline is a requested reporting period measured from the reviewer's acceptance of the invitation. It does not include reviewer recruitment or other editorial procedures and is not a guarantee that the complete peer review process will conclude within four weeks.

Following formal acceptance, copyediting, production, and online publication ordinarily require approximately 3–5 weeks in total. There is no additional standard publication waiting period beyond that estimate. Further information is available in the Publication Process & Timeline.

Double-Blind Anonymity and Confidentiality

The journal seeks to protect author and reviewer anonymity throughout double-blind external review. Authors must prepare manuscripts for anonymous evaluation, while reviewers and editors must safeguard confidential information obtained through the editorial process.

The following confidentiality requirements apply:

• Authors must remove identifying names, affiliations, acknowledgments, and unnecessary identifying document metadata from manuscripts prepared for double-blind review.
• Reviewers must not intentionally seek to identify authors, contact them directly concerning the review, or disclose their own identities through confidential reports.
• Unpublished manuscripts and their supporting materials must not be circulated, publicly discussed, reproduced, or used outside the authorized review process.
• Reviewers must not use unpublished ideas, evidence, textual findings, translations, or other research materials for personal or professional advantage.
• Reviewers must not delegate their assignments or share manuscripts with colleagues, students, or other individuals without prior editorial authorization.
• Editorial communications, reviewer identities, internal deliberations, and confidential reports must be protected from unauthorized disclosure.

Complete anonymity cannot always be guaranteed, particularly in highly specialized fields, where public preprints, conference presentations, distinctive research projects, or publicly accessible source collections may reveal aspects of authorship. The existence of such circumstances does not automatically make a manuscript ineligible for double-blind review.

Where identities become known or a conflict emerges, the responsible editor must consider whether additional safeguards, reviewer reassignment, or other measures are necessary to protect the integrity of the evaluation. Further requirements are specified in the journal's Confidentiality & Ethics policy.

Ethical Responsibilities of Reviewers

Reviewers are expected to provide assessments that are independent, professionally expressed, timely, and grounded in relevant scholarly evidence.

Reviewers must:

• Accept invitations only when they possess sufficient expertise and can reasonably complete the assignment.
• Disclose relevant conflicts of interest before accepting a review or immediately upon discovering a potential conflict.
• Assess the work according to appropriate scholarly standards rather than personal or institutional preferences.
• Provide clear and constructive reasons for significant criticisms and recommendations.
• Avoid personal attacks, abusive language, discriminatory statements, unsupported allegations, or irrelevant commentary.
• Avoid coercive citation requests or recommendations intended primarily to increase the citation count of themselves or others.
• Report credible concerns involving plagiarism, fabricated sources, misleading translations, peer review manipulation, or other potential misconduct to the responsible editor.
• Respect manuscript confidentiality and the journal's procedures for communicating reviewer comments and recommendations.

Reviewers should distinguish between demonstrable factual errors, methodological weaknesses, legitimate interpretive disagreements, and personal theoretical preferences. A manuscript should not be rejected merely because it offers a defensible interpretation that differs from the reviewer's own position.

Detailed instructions are available in the Reviewer Guidelines.

Artificial Intelligence and Confidential Review Materials

Manuscripts submitted for peer review constitute confidential scholarly communications. Reviewers and editors must not upload unpublished manuscripts, identifiable extracts, supporting files, review reports, or protected editorial communications to external artificial intelligence services without appropriate authorization and safeguards.

Any permitted use of AI-assisted tools must respect confidentiality, copyright, applicable privacy obligations, and the journal's ethical requirements. The responsible individual must independently verify relevant outputs and retain accountability for the scholarly evaluation.

Automated language assistance or technical tools must not replace the reviewer's independent assessment of research originality, source reliability, philosophical argumentation, historical interpretation, methodological quality, or scholarly contribution.

AI-generated assessments may contain fabricated references, inaccurate source descriptions, unsupported interpretations, or misleading statements. Such material must not be presented as verified scholarly evidence without independent examination.

Conflicts of Interest and Editorial Independence

Reviewers, editors, and other individuals involved in manuscript evaluation must disclose relationships or interests that could materially influence, or reasonably appear to influence, their professional judgment.

Potential conflicts may include:

• Recent or ongoing collaboration, co-authorship, academic supervision, or other close professional relationships.
• Personal, family, or adversarial relationships that could compromise impartiality.
• Financial interests or institutional responsibilities directly related to the manuscript or its conclusions.
• Prior participation in the underlying research or preparation of the submitted manuscript.
• Other circumstances creating a material interest in the outcome of evaluation.

A disclosed interest does not automatically require exclusion in every circumstance. The responsible editor must assess the nature and significance of the potential conflict and determine whether disclosure, reassignment, recusal, or another safeguard is necessary.

Where a manuscript is submitted by an editor, editorial board member, or individual closely connected to the journal's leadership or publisher, an appropriately independent editor must manage the evaluation. The interested individual must not control reviewer selection or the acceptance decision concerning their own work.

The same academic and ethical standards apply to ordinary submissions, invited contributions, and special-issue manuscripts. Publication charges, financial sponsorship, institutional affiliations, and personal relationships must not be used to secure preferential scholarly evaluation.

Peer Review Integrity and Misconduct

TTS prohibits attempts to manipulate or compromise the independence, confidentiality, or authenticity of its peer review procedures.

Prohibited practices include:

• Fabricated reviewer identities, false contact information, impersonation, or fraudulent review submissions.
• Undisclosed coordination intended to influence reviewer selection, recommendations, or editorial decisions.
• Unauthorized disclosure, copying, distribution, or misuse of confidential manuscripts and review materials.
• Deliberate misrepresentation of reviewer expertise, independence, or relevant competing interests.
• Misappropriation of unpublished evidence, interpretations, translations, methods, or other scholarly contributions.
• Coercive citation requests, retaliatory reviewing, discriminatory treatment, or improper pressure directed at authors, reviewers, or editors.

Credible concerns may result in further verification, replacement of a reviewer, additional independent assessment, suspension of the affected evaluation, or other proportionate action under the journal's publication ethics procedures.

Allegations must be evaluated fairly and with appropriate regard for confidentiality and supporting evidence. A complaint alone does not establish wrongdoing. Further procedures are described in the Publication Ethics Policy.

Editorial Appeals and Review-Related Complaints

Authors may request reconsideration of an editorial decision when they believe that a material factual error, significant procedural irregularity, unmanaged conflict of interest, or other substantive problem affected the fairness of the assessment.

An appeal should:

• Identify the manuscript and relevant editorial decision.
• Explain the specific grounds for reconsideration.
• Provide supporting evidence or documentary clarification where available.
• Distinguish factual or procedural concerns from ordinary scholarly disagreement.
• Be presented professionally and without improper pressure on reviewers or editorial staff.

The editorial office evaluates appeals according to their substance and may seek clarification, independent editorial consideration, or additional specialist advice where warranted.

An appeal does not automatically result in another review round or reversal of a decision. The existence of a defensible scholarly disagreement between an author and reviewer is not, by itself, evidence of procedural unfairness.

Complaints concerning reviewer conduct or editorial conflicts may be considered separately under the journal's publication ethics procedures. Where a complaint directly concerns the responsible editor, an appropriately independent person may be assigned to consider it.

Peer Review After Publication

Completion of peer review does not prevent subsequent scholarly examination of a published article. Readers and researchers may identify errors, question interpretations, provide additional evidence, or raise legitimate research integrity concerns after publication.

Where a substantive post-publication concern arises, TTS may request clarification from the authors, consult independent experts, evaluate supporting evidence, or take other appropriate measures according to the nature of the issue.

Depending on the circumstances, the journal may publish a correction, clarification, expression of concern, retraction, or other appropriate notice. Such decisions are governed by the journal's publication ethics procedures rather than by the original peer review outcome alone.

Legitimate academic disagreement should be distinguished from evidence of unreliable research or publication misconduct. The journal supports constructive criticism and the continued scholarly evaluation of published work.

Submission System and Editorial Communication

All formal manuscript submissions, revisions, and associated editorial files must be processed through the journal's official online submission system.

Authors may use their accounts to monitor available editorial information, receive relevant decision notifications, and submit revised manuscripts. Reviewers should complete their assignments through the journal's designated review procedures and must not send confidential manuscripts or review materials through unauthorized communication channels.

Submission Guidelines: View Submission Requirements

Author Registration: Create an Author Account

Online Submission System: Access the Journal's Submission System

The editorial email address is intended for questions concerning peer review procedures, manuscript progress, reviewer invitations, ethical concerns, complaints, and administrative or technical assistance. It is not the standard channel for formal manuscript submission or revision.