Peer Review Process

Comparative Philosophy and Religious Traditions (CPRT) is committed to ensuring a fair, rigorous, and transparent peer review process. All submissions are evaluated through a double-blind review system to uphold academic integrity and scholarly excellence.

The journal publishes two issues per year (June and December) and operates an Online First model to ensure timely dissemination of accepted research.

1. Initial Editorial Screening

Upon submission, manuscripts undergo an initial screening by the Editorial Office and the Editor-in-Chief (or a designated Associate Editor).

During this stage, the manuscript is assessed for:

• Relevance to the journal’s Aims & Scope
• Originality and scholarly contribution
• Compliance with formatting and submission guidelines
• Ethical standards and plagiarism screening

Estimated time: 7–10 days

2. Double-Blind Peer Review

Manuscripts that pass the initial screening are assigned to at least two independent expert reviewers.

CPRT follows a double-blind peer review model:

• Reviewers do not know the identity of the authors.
• Authors do not know the identity of the reviewers.

Reviewers are selected based on subject expertise, research background, and absence of conflicts of interest.

Reviewers are asked to evaluate:

• Originality and significance
• Conceptual clarity and methodological rigor
• Comparative depth and theoretical coherence
• Engagement with relevant scholarship
• Quality of argumentation and references

Estimated review time: 4–6 weeks

If reviewer reports conflict or require additional expertise, a third reviewer may be appointed.

3. Editorial Decision

Based on reviewer reports, the Editor-in-Chief (or handling editor) makes one of the following decisions:

• Accept
• Minor Revision
• Major Revision
• Reject

Editorial decisions are based on academic merit and reviewer recommendations. The editor retains final responsibility for all publication decisions.

Estimated decision time after reviews: 1–2 weeks

4. Revision Process

If revisions are required:

• Minor Revision: authors are typically given 2–3 weeks
• Major Revision: authors are typically given 4–6 weeks

Revised manuscripts may be returned to the original reviewers for further evaluation.

5. Final Acceptance and Production

Once a manuscript is formally accepted:

• Authors receive an acceptance notification.
• The manuscript enters copyediting and typesetting.
• Proofs are sent to authors for final approval.

Accepted articles are published online promptly under the Online First model before being assigned to the June or December issue.

7. Reviewer Responsibilities

Reviewers are expected to:

• Provide objective, constructive, and timely feedback
• Maintain confidentiality
• Disclose conflicts of interest
• Refrain from using unpublished material for personal advantage

8. Appeals Process

Authors who believe an editorial decision was made in error may submit a formal appeal to the Editorial Office.

Appeals must:

• Clearly explain the grounds for reconsideration
• Address reviewer comments substantively

Appeals are evaluated independently and may involve consultation with additional reviewers or editorial board members.

9. Editorial Independence

Editorial decisions are made independently of the publisher. No commercial or financial considerations influence the review process.