Religions as Innovative Traditions: The Case of the Juhuro of Moscow

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This seems like a generally competent historical analysis of the Juhuro of Moscow, a Jewish minority group that has been striving to preserve its identity in present-day Moscow. I certainly learned much about this minority religious group and believe the article would be of interest to scholars of Judaism and minority religious groups more generally.

I believe the author(s) could do more to improve the readability of the article. Here are four (hopefully straightforward) suggestions:

(1) At the end of the Introduction section, include an "outline" paragraph that clarifies the purpose of the remaining sections.

(2) In sections 2 through 4, try to present information more chronologically. In particular, the 2nd section bounces around quite a bit, discussing the situation facing the Juhuro in the 1990s under Gorbachev, then during the Soviet Union, then at the beginning of the 19th century at the time of the annexation of the Eastern Caucasus, then in the 1930s, then in the 1970s, etc. As a result, I had trouble following this section. It would help to begin with the earliest time period and then proceed chronologically. 

(3) Some of the paragraphs are extremely long--spanning over one page--so I would recommend breaking those up into smaller paragraphs.

(4) I recommend more thoroughly proofreading the paper (or having someone read over it) to correct occasional typos, fragments, awkwardly worded sentences, etc.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

We (me and my co-author) would like to thank you for your work and for your insightful suggestions.

We have decided to accept almost all your remarks, so that in the revisioned draft an outline was added (this remark was in common with the other reviewer, thank you both), section 2 was ordered according to a chronological timeline, and two more readings tried to remove occasional errors and typos.

We have only decided to maintain long paragraphs because, as explained in the new outline paragraph, each paragraph represents a strong and complex argumentative block, one for the ethnos, one for the religion, one for the language. Conclusions follow. This structure was a consequence of our research and cognitive interests.

Thank you again for your contribution, we are sure that the quality of the paper has improved,

Regards.

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear Authors, 

Thank you for the opportunity to review your interesting work. I do have some feedback for you to consider for the improvement of your paper. 

Introduction: In your introduction, you are making big claims that need to be problematized and supported with citations. Claims made in each sentence in the first paragraph need citations (lines 26-32). I would also like to see a rationale for referring to Russia as a salad bowl (rather than an another cultural metaphor, such as the cultural mosaic). It is good to not assume that all readers will know what you mean, so a definition or rationale is needed. 

There needs to be a clearer purpose statement and "map" of the paper. Please at the introduction state clearly what the purpose of the paper is, and provide an overview of what is to be discussed. This will help the reader understand what you will be presenting, as right now one gets lost in the detail and the paper loses focus. An overview of the paper at the beginning will help the reader. 

Attention is needed throughout to make sure claims are substantiated: 

Line 148: Replace roman numerals with numbers (same for the entire manuscript). 

Line 153: Change Islamic radicalisation to "radicalisation in the name of Islam." Include citation for this claim. 

Lines 158-166, claims need to be supported with citations. 

Take a close look at each section and make sure to remove you bias as much as possible.  

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

We (me and my co-author) would like to thank you for your work and for your insightful suggestions.

We have decided to accept almost all your remarks, so that in the revisioned draft an outline (or map of the paper) was added. (this remark was in common with the other reviewer, thank you both).

Personally, I have added citations and a definition concerning the multicultural reality of Moscow (please, to consider that all our claims about the multicultural scenario regard the city and not the whole of Russia. One of the authors lives and works in Moscow, so all evaluations concerned the city and not the gigantic context of Russia; quoted literature focuses specifically on the city, also). 

Two more readings tried to eliminate occasional errors and bias.

Roman numerals were removed.

Citations were added, where requested. The list of references was modified accordingly.

Thank you again for your contribution, we think that the quality of the paper has improved.

We have appreciated,

Regards.