Next Article in Journal
Space and Sonship: Paul’s Familial Metaphors in Rom 8
Next Article in Special Issue
Dead Men Talking: Ibn ‘Arabī’s Interactions with Messengers and Saints
Previous Article in Journal
The Self and the Other: A Further Reflection on Buddhist–Christian Dialogue
 
 
Article
Peer-Review Record

Whose Soul Is It?—Destinative Magic in East-Central Europe (14th–18th Centuries)

Religions 2024, 15(3), 377; https://doi.org/10.3390/rel15030377
by Benedek Láng
Reviewer 1: Anonymous
Reviewer 2: Anonymous
Religions 2024, 15(3), 377; https://doi.org/10.3390/rel15030377
Submission received: 20 February 2024 / Revised: 14 March 2024 / Accepted: 19 March 2024 / Published: 21 March 2024
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Communication with the Dead)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article is well-organised and structured fluidly, with well-developed sections. It demonstrates a high level of understanding and synthesis of primary source materials and broader literature related to destinative elements in late medieval and early modern European magic. The transition in magical agency during the latter period is effectively addressed, summarised, and supported by documentary evidence.

Although well-written, there are a few typos, such as in line 80 and 81 where "... is occasionally provides..." should either be "...occasionally provides..." or "...is occasionally providing..."

In line 145, the use of "endurance" and "enduring" in close proximity may sound repetitive to some readers. Additionally, in line 152, "nd" should perhaps be corrected to "and".

The conclusions drawn are accurate, and similar shifts can be observed in other European countries between the 16th and 18th centuries.

Author Response

Thank you for this quick review process!

I corrected all the typos indicated by the Reviewer (highlighting my corrections in the revised version), and elaborated the conclusions even more thoroughly.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

It is a short but good essay. If elongated it would probably be even clearer, because each short paragraph deals with a theme, the whole thing is certainly coherent, but one gets the impression of moving quickly from one theme to another. However, if this is the recommended length, it can certainly be accepted as it is

Author Response

Thank you for this quick review process!

I have revised the conclusions to make them more detailed. 

With the best wishes

 

Back to TopTop