Chirantan runs two review tracks, matched to submission type.
Track A - Creative & Reflective (poetry, short stories, essays and reflective write-ups): reviewed by a two-member editorial panel for thematic connection to Indian philosophical, spiritual or cultural traditions, literary/artistic merit, originality and voice, and sensitivity in portrayal of cultural material. Not double-blind. Outcomes: accept / suggested revisions / not accepted. Decision typically within 1-2 weeks.
Track B - Academic (original research, review articles, case studies, short communications, book reviews, conference reports): initial editorial screening for scope fit, citation integrity and formatting; manuscripts passing screening are anonymised and sent to two independent reviewers for double-blind review assessing originality and contribution, methodological rigor, clarity, citation quality, and cultural sensitivity. A third independent reviewer is consulted if the two disagree significantly. Outcomes: accept / minor revisions / major revisions / reject. Final decision rests with the Editor-in-Chief or a designated Section Editor. Decision typically within 2-3 weeks.
A submission's track is fixed by its type at the time of submission and does not change afterwards.
Chirantan does not offer expedited, fast-track or paid priority review at any stage. Every submission goes through the same track-appropriate process on the same timeline, regardless of urgency requested.
Internal editorial assessment. Before a manuscript reaches external reviewers it passes through an internal assessment stage. Here the editorial office reads the technical screening result together with an advisory, subject-area reading of the manuscript produced by software, and a named editor then decides whether it goes forward to external peer review, goes back to the author for correction first, or is declined without review.
This stage is deliberately not called peer review and is not counted as one. Peer review at Chirantan means assessment by qualified human reviewers, and every manuscript published has been through it.
Editorial use of AI tools. Chirantan uses software tools at several points in the editorial process: triaging incoming submissions, checking formatting and anonymisation, screening for citation accuracy against Crossref, shortlisting reviewer candidates, and producing the advisory subject-area reading described above.
These tools advise; they never decide. No AI tool accepts, rejects or requests revision of a manuscript. No AI output is counted as a peer review or toward the two-reviewer requirement for Track B, and no AI-generated report is sent to an author in place of, or alongside, a reviewer's report. Every editorial decision is recorded against a named human editor who is accountable for it.
Processing a manuscript with these tools involves sending its text to a third-party AI provider.
Opting out of the AI assessment. An author who would prefer their manuscript not to be read by the AI Review Board at the internal assessment stage may say so when submitting, or by writing to the editorial office at any point before a decision. The request is recorded on the submission and honoured; it will not disadvantage the manuscript, and the editor still makes the same initial decision, simply without an assessment to read.
This opt-out covers the advisory assessment only. Citation-integrity checking - and textual-similarity screening once it is in place - is how the journal establishes that a manuscript is publishable at all, and is not optional for any submission.