Reviewer Guidelines

Comparative Philosophy and Religious Traditions (CPRT) relies on the expertise, fairness, and integrity of its reviewers to maintain high scholarly standards in comparative philosophy and religious studies.

Reviewers play a central role in ensuring the rigor, originality, and intellectual contribution of published research.

1. Purpose of Peer Review

The peer review process aims to:

Ensure academic quality and originality
Promote constructive scholarly dialogue
Strengthen clarity and argumentation
Uphold ethical standards

CPRT operates a double-blind peer review system. Reviewer and author identities are concealed throughout the evaluation process.

2. Reviewer Responsibilities

Reviewers are expected to:

Provide objective, balanced, and constructive evaluations
Assess manuscripts solely on scholarly merit
Maintain confidentiality
Disclose conflicts of interest
Submit reviews within the agreed timeframe

If a reviewer feels unqualified to evaluate a submission or unable to complete the review on time, they should inform the editorial office promptly.

3. Evaluation Criteria

Reviewers are asked to assess the following aspects:

3.1 Originality and Contribution

Does the manuscript offer a meaningful contribution to comparative philosophy or religious studies? Does it advance theoretical or interpretive understanding?

3.2 Conceptual Clarity and Rigor

Are arguments coherent and logically structured? Are key concepts clearly defined? Is the comparative framework well articulated?

3.3 Engagement with Scholarship

Does the manuscript engage relevant primary and secondary literature? Are sources properly cited in Chicago Notes and Bibliography format?

3.4 Methodological Soundness

Is the methodology appropriate for the research question? Are textual interpretations or comparative claims adequately supported?

3.5 Scholarly Presentation

Is the writing clear and academically appropriate? Are references accurate and complete? Are there significant structural issues?

4. Ethical Responsibilities

Reviewers must:

Treat manuscripts as confidential documents
Not use unpublished material for personal research
Avoid personal criticism of authors
Identify possible ethical concerns (plagiarism, duplicate publication, fabricated citations)

If suspected misconduct arises, reviewers should notify the editor privately.

5. Conflict of Interest

Reviewers should decline review if:

There is a personal or professional relationship with the author
There is institutional affiliation overlap
There is financial or academic competition
Any circumstance compromises impartiality

Transparency ensures the integrity of the review process.

6. Use of Artificial Intelligence

Reviewers must not upload confidential manuscripts into AI systems or third-party platforms for evaluation.

The use of generative AI tools to produce review reports is discouraged. Reviewers are expected to provide independent scholarly judgment.

Confidentiality must be maintained at all times.

7. Review Format

Reviewers are encouraged to structure their reports as follows:

Summary of the manuscript
Major strengths
Major concerns
Specific recommendations
Minor corrections (if applicable)

Recommendations to the editor typically include:

Accept
Minor Revision
Major Revision
Reject

Final decisions rest with the Editor-in-Chief.

8. Timelines

Reviewers are normally asked to complete their evaluation within 4–6 weeks.

If additional time is needed, reviewers should inform the editorial office.

9. Recognition of Reviewers

CPRT values the contribution of reviewers and may:

Acknowledge reviewers annually (without linking to specific manuscripts)
Provide confirmation letters upon request
Participate in reviewer recognition initiatives where appropriate

10. Commitment to Scholarly Integrity

By accepting a review invitation, reviewers agree to uphold the journal’s standards of fairness, rigor, and academic responsibility.

Peer review is a collaborative process aimed at advancing intercivilizational philosophical scholarship.