Humanist Chaplains Entering Traditionally Faith-Based NHS Chaplaincy Teams
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The article is very interesting and will contribute an important perspective to the research field. Research on humanist chaplaincy is scarce and needs more attention. However, in its current form the article needs more revision. I think that the text could be structured more clearly, which would help to clarify the author(s) perspective and the data.
The introduction is too short and does not review the state of the art of research in chaplaincy. This needs to be better and also setting the stage for how this research is related to existing research on chaplaincy and why studying this specific case is relevant for the literature.
After the methods, I would expect some results, but these are now presented together with the discussion which is not convincing and needs to be restructured. Using some of the literature from the discussion in the introduction would help make more clear why this specific case is relevant to study.
I think if the author(s) would restructure the text, their argument would be much stronger and would add an interesting contribution to the future of chaplaincy.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you for taking the time to provide valuable comments to my review. I have attached your feedback along with the changes I made to this reply.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
See attached
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you for taking the time to provide valuable comments to my review. I have attached your feedback along with the changes I made to this reply.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
I found the paper to be very enlightening about a very difficult subject.
There are a few typos in the text.
I found the inclusion of the "I" material strange in a paper like this, where most of it is written in the third person. It is a bit jarring when the author suddenly changes to a personal reflection or comment. There should be a way to do a personal reflection in this paper, but not the way it is done here.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you for taking the time to provide valuable comments to my review. I have attached your feedback along with the changes I made to this reply.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
I think the structure of the article has improved. The methods of the narrative review remain a bit vague. I recommend a little more elaboration on that point (minor revision).
Author Response
|
Reviewer 1
|
I think the structure of the article has improved. The methods of the narrative review remain a bit vague. I recommend a little more elaboration on that point (minor revision). |
The text has been extensively revised from a narrative review to an article instead. |
Reviewer 2 Report
The author(s) state several times that "There is very little research about humanist chaplains entering NHS Healthcare." Given the limited existing research, it seems premature to conduct a review of prior research.
The paper presents a good "essay" on issues related to the expansion of chaplaincy to include humanist practitioners. However, it covers a broader scope than the title or original intent suggests.
It seems to be a review of some research and other information related to the expansion of NHS chaplaincy to include humanist perspectives, but I'm not sure it is what I would consider a review of research.
Given my overall hesitation, this revision provides an improved structure and organization.
Themes 4 and 5 are notably less substantive than the others.
I'm not quite sure what the purpose of the conclusion is.
Author Response
Thank you for your valued feedback.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
