Understanding Responses to Worship Regulations in the Pandemic Era: Text Data Mining Analysis in the Indonesian Context

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 3)

This paper examines cultural and media discourse related to religiously focused pandemic response in Indonesia. The topic is important but the paper needs considerable work.

1. The concept of mapping is unclear here. Is that really the best choice of words and does it belong in the title? One almost suspects a GIS/spatial analysis. I realize that cultural mapping is the point here, but I still think that mapping is not the best frame for this study.

2. This paper needs a theoretical framework. Having a conceptual lens through which to interpret the data and explain the findings would make the study much more compelling. If the authors are engaged in discourse analysis, then outlining some key concepts from theories of discourse (discursive positioning, dominant and subordinate discourses, power/knowledge, etc.) would give the findings more credibility. See, e.g., https://www.mdpi.com/2075-4698/8/3/55. Moreover, there are important distinctions to be drawn between different discursive groups (religious leaders, policy makers, media commentators).

3. The methods are lacking. Text mining was used, but more detail about this approach is needed. Why is this the best method to employ? More importantly, how were sampling decisions made concerning organizations whose statements were analyzed and how were specific declarations chosen from those organizations? What inclusion/exclusion criteria guided the selection of organizations and texts? The rules governing the sample selection are not at all clear.

4. If the data analysis was driven by categorization, how were the categories initially generated? This is where theory is so vitally important. Did the categories come from theory and/or previous research? How are we sure those are trustworthy and appropriate categories? Did the binary categories around support prove insufficient for some texts because discourse often exhibits ambivalence or polysemous messaging? The mechanics of categorization are addressed but the underlying logic (source and adequacy of the categories) remains elusive.

5. The writing is, at points, very difficult to follow. Careful copy editing for English usage is needed.

6. Some of the references are incomplete and there are a mix of reference styles used here.

If this paper is to proceed, major revisions (carefully tracked and clearly evident) are needed.

Author Response

Reviewer 1

This paper examines cultural and media discourse related to religiously focused pandemic response in Indonesia. The topic is important but the paper needs considerable work.

1. The concept of mapping is unclear here. Is that really the best choice of words and does it belong in the title? One almost suspects a GIS/spatial analysis. I realize that cultural mapping is the point here, but I still think that mapping is not the best frame for this study.

Author’s response:

Many thanks for the constructive comments. The amendment has been made properly in line with the reviewer’s feedback.

2. This paper needs a theoretical framework. Having a conceptual lens through which to interpret the data and explain the findings would make the study much more compelling. If the authors are engaged in discourse analysis, then outlining some key concepts from theories of discourse (discursive positioning, dominant and subordinate discourses, power/knowledge, etc.) would give the findings more credibility. See, e.g., https://www.mdpi.com/2075-4698/8/3/55. Moreover, there are important distinctions to be drawn between different discursive groups (religious leaders, policy makers, media commentators).

Author’s response:

Many thanks for the feedback. The theoretical framework has been made with the lens on interpreting data as suggested by reviewer’s constructive comment.

3. The methods are lacking. Text mining was used, but more detail about this approach is needed. Why is this the best method to employ? More importantly, how were sampling decisions made concerning organizations whose statements were analyzed and how were specific declarations chosen from those organizations? What inclusion/exclusion criteria guided the selection of organizations and texts? The rules governing the sample selection are not at all clear.

Author’s response:

Many thanks for the constructive comment. The methodology has been developed in the current form of manuscript. It includes sampling decision, specific declaration, inclusion and exclusion criteria procedure. Moreover, the selection of organisation of text and main point of each data is also made into building the category more clearly.

4. If the data analysis was driven by categorization, how were the categories initially generated? This is where theory is so vitally important. Did the categories come from theory and/or previous research? How are we sure those are trustworthy and appropriate categories? Did the binary categories around support prove insufficient for some texts because discourse often exhibits ambivalence or polysemous messaging? The mechanics of categorization are addressed but the underlying logic (source and adequacy of the categories) remains elusive.

Author’s response:

Many thanks for the constructive comment. In order to obtain the categorization of data, the initial step is to look into the similar point of each response with the category represented of each point. The category is made based on the accumulation of each point from the data.

5. The writing is, at points, very difficult to follow. Careful copy editing for English usage is needed.

Author’s response:

Very much of thanks for the suggestion. Sure, the copy editing has been made on the entire paper.

6. Some of the references are incomplete and there are a mix of reference styles used here. If this paper is to proceed, major revisions (carefully tracked and clearly evident) are needed.

Author’s response:

Thank you very much for the comments. The references style and format has been improved completely.

Reviewer 2 Report (New Reviewer)

This article could offer significant insight into the ways a pandemic destabilizes the complex relationships of politics and religion. The author has identified some of the key conflicts. Is public prayer recommended or required? Who has the authority to alter the forms of public worship? The summary found in 88-99 needs to be integrated more uniformly into the findings. The statement of the essay's primary contribution (328) needs to come earlier in the article. The sections 619-643 present the clearest intention of the article and need to be introduced earlier in developing the author's arguments. The article deserves attention; it holds important insights for faith communities and governmental bodies. Further editing and revision is highly recommended. 

Author Response

Reviewer 2

This article could offer significant insight into the ways a pandemic destabilizes the complex relationships of politics and religion. The author has identified some of the key conflicts. Is public prayer recommended or required? Who has the authority to alter the forms of public worship? The summary found in 88-99 needs to be integrated more uniformly into the findings. The statement of the essay's primary contribution (328) needs to come earlier in the article. The sections 619-643 present the clearest intention of the article and need to be introduced earlier in developing the author's arguments. The article deserves attention; it holds important insights for faith communities and governmental bodies. Further editing and revision is highly recommended.

Author’s response:

Many thanks for the constructive comments. The improvement with an additional identification in the clear explanation on public prayer arrangement and regulation has been made in following the current situation. The revision has been also being made on integrating uniformly into the main point of the paper from the page 88 to 110. Moreover, the primary contribution stated in the page 328 to 333 has been developed and improved. In addition, the further improvement sections 619-643 have been made with focusing on the objective and was approached in developing the author’s main arguments. As such, the additional further development on the article in deserving the attention with bringing the new important insights for faith communities and governmental bodies has been widely elaborated properly in line with the proper recommendation and suggestion. The additional elaboration has also been made through the further editing and proofreading by the native speaker in order to clearly submit the main point of the paper’s statement and argument.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 3)

I appreciate the effort the author has undertaken in this revision, but the clarity of the paper remains severely lacking. Therefore, I have one major remaining concern. This paper must be carefully copyedited by someone with exerptise in copyediting English prose, ideally, technical writing in English. 

With the expanded writing, the prose is now even more difficult to understand. The paper now addresses the topic more comprehensively but any reader's ability to comprehend (understand) the core arguments has diminished. This problem remains evident in the title and is also present in revised sentences. So, even the following revised sentence is now more unclear:

"Given being responded to the new norms with the social distance scenario, the government needs to form the proper strategy in approaching the properly technical regulation as the response with the direct answer to the issues (Shirvani & Rostamkhani, 2020)."

It should read this way:

"Given the emergence of social distance norms during the pandemic, the government needed to consider what regulations would most directly address the issues (Shirvani & Rostamkhani, 2020)."

The prose is very problematic in this paper. If this issue cannot be fully corrected, my recommendation will most certainly be Reject in the next review round should the author have the chance to revise. I like this paper but must insist on proper prose.

Author Response

Dear reviewer. Many thanks for the constructive comment. The additional English editing has been made in the current form. Moreover, the careful copy editing is also conducted, where the improvement on the abstract, introduction, literature, methodology, analysis and discussion, and also conclusion has been carefully carried out. In the abstract, for instance, the objective, method and finding have been developed in enabling the reader easy to get the main point. In the introduction, the rational and main motivation of conducting the study have been improved. In further, the literature was also improved with developing the definition of ‘Worship Regulations in the Pandemic Age, Indonesian Government Policies in the Pandemic Age and also The COVID 19 Pandemic and Health Protocol Regulation. In the methodology, the explanation about the phase of text data mining analysis has been developed including ‘Data sources, Data collection process, Text screening process, Text analysis procedure and Theme categorization process’. The results included ‘Leading online media’s points on the worship regulation in pandemic age, Religious leaders’ statement on the worship regulation in pandemic age and Religious organization’s public statement in the responses on worship regulation in pandemic age.’ Both analysis and discussion have been also improved with developing the argument followed by the source or citation to support it. The section of limitation, implication and further studies have been also improved in the current form. We hope that the current form of manuscript would give insight into the reviewer’s constructive comment.

With warm regards and best wishes

Corresponding author

Reviewer 2 Report (New Reviewer)

This essay is greatly improved, but still requires further work on English grammar. I encourage you to continue to prepare this for publication.

Author Response

Authors’ response:

Many thanks for the constructive comments. The improvement with an additional identification in the clear explanation on public prayer arrangement and regulation has been made in following the current situation. As such, the additional further development on the article in deserving the attention with bringing the new important insights for faith communities and governmental bodies has been widely elaborated properly in line with the proper recommendation and suggestion. The additional elaboration has also been made through the further editing and proofreading by the native speaker in order to clearly submit the main point of the paper’s statement and argument.

With warm regards and best wishes

Corresponding author

Round 3

Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 3)

I commend the authors on a thorough revision. Two quick comments.

1. The paper could still use careful proofreading. As just one example, this sentence...

The number of recent researches on religious discourse on pandemic have various perspectives, approaches elements and policy initiatives that require critical analysis of the contemporary situations.

...could be edited to read this way:

Recent research examining religious discourse on the pandemic has exhibited various perspectives, approaches, elements, and policy initiatives, all of which require critical analysis to understand the contemporary situation.

2. Here is a recently published article that may be relevant to religious resistance against pandemic health measures: https://www.mdpi.com/2227-9032/11/4/582.

Author Response

I wish to submit the revised manuscript titled ‘Understanding Responses to Worship Regulations in the Pandemic Era: Text Data Mining Analysis in the Indonesian Context’ for possible consideration for regular issue in ‘Religions’.

This paper titled above has been revised according to the reviewer’s comment as follows. 

• The proper amendment has been made in line with the reviewer’s feedback.
• The additional proofreading and editing have been carried out by the professional experts.
• The copy editing has been made on the entire paper.
• The references style and format has been improved completely.
• The additional further development on the article in deserving the attention with bringing the new important insights for faith communities and governmental bodies has been widely elaborated properly in line with the proper recommendation and suggestion.
• The additional elaboration has also been made through the further editing and proofreading by the native speaker in order to clearly submit the main point of the paper’s statement and argument.

We hope that the following revised version is clear and easily understandable. We sincerely thank you very much for your patient in handling this manuscript until getting accepted and published. It is highly appreciated.

With warm regards

Corresponding author

This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This study explores religious responses to COVID-19 government policies in Indonesia using online media.

The authors state: “Such studies have yet to obtain an understanding of how public policies have limited worship by closing mosques, even though the pandemic has provided us with important lessons regarding the importance of limiting public activities to protect the common good.”

There are many studies that examine how COVID-19 health mandates/restrictions/policies have been received, in general, and by religious groups/people specifically. The authors should review this literature, ground their study in it, and then indicate what they are doing that advances that literature. The authors cite some work from this journal, but should also look at the Journal of Religion and Health, the Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, and the Sociology of Religion. Here are some articles that might be useful:

Alder et al. 2021. “Religion at the Frontline: How Religion Influenced the Response of Local Government Officials to the COVID-19 Pandemic.” Sociology of Religion.

Perry et al. 2020. “Save the Economy, Liberty, and Yourself: Christian Nationalism and Americans’ Views on Government COVID-19 Restrictions.” Sociology of Religion

Lee et al. 2021. ““A Divine Infection”: A Systematic Review on the Roles of Religious Communities During the Early Stage of COVID-19.” Journal of Religion and Health.

Perry et al. 2020. “Culture Wars and COVID-19 Conduct: Christian Nationalism, Religiosity, and Americans’ Behavior During the Coronavirus Pandemic.” Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion.

Schnabel and Schieman 2021. “Religion Protected Mental Health but Constrained Crisis Response During Crucial Early Days of the COVID-19 Pandemic.” Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion.

Corcoran et al. 2022. “Global Contexts: How Countries Shape the COVID-19 Experience of Amish and Mennonite Missionaries Abroad.” Religions.

Moore and Foreman. 2022. “Defiant Worship: Religious Liberty Talk and Rights in COVID-19 Pandemic Times.” Journal of Church and State.

In the discussion section, it would be interesting for the authors to reflect on how the religious responses in Indonesia were or were not similar to what has been found in other research.

The authors state: “This article departs from the argument that government policies limiting worship activities during the COVID-19 pandemic have been designed to create public awareness of the importance of safety.”

How does the article depart form this? What are you arguing these government policies were designed for?

The paper notes: “As such, civil society and religious organizations should work together to socialize government policies.”

I’m not sure what “socialize” government policies means.

Additionally, the description of how the data was collected is vague. The authors note the sources of the data collection, but don’t describe the extent of their data collection. What do the authors mean by “map the written materials”? How many written materials (e.g., online news stories, journal articles, books, and other relevant literature) were initially identified? How were they identified (e.g., what were the key word searches, etc)? How many were reviewed or rejected and how many made it into the sample? The authors need to provide more details regarding this process. Additionally, in the results section the authors should note how extensive the themes they found were. What percentage of the materials reported each theme?

Author Response

Dear Editor

I believe you are well in the best of health. I would like to kindly submit the author response as attached in the following below. 

With best wishes

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Good piece of research. The point of you of the author should be enhanced.

Author Response

Dear Editor

We do hope that the revision made might reach the reviewers’ positive and encouraging comments. Therefore, such helpful suggestion and advice has been already conducted in the latest version of our manuscript. Hopefully, this revised manuscript can reach a standard as supposed.

With best wishes 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

This paper examines debates about COVID worship limitations as evident in Indonesian media. It’s a well done paper but would benefit from attention to the following considerations. 

1. Please offer a more compelling argument for Indonesia as an suitable case for this investigation. Why is this nation an excellent case in which to examine this issue?

2. Elaborate the theory more fully. The theory should more directly inform the methods and results. Theories of discourse, for example, stress diverse messaging. A deeper dive into this theory and discursive heterogeneity would be welcome. 

3. Offer more detail on the sampling procedures while justifying each step in the process. 

4. For future research, please give more attention to the novel insights that may emerge from a comparative analysis. Specify that such an analysis was beyond the scope of this study but acknowledge its advantages and provide an example of a good comparison. 

Author Response

Dear Editor

We do hope that the revision made might reach the reviewers’ positive and encouraging comments. Therefore, such helpful suggestion and advice has been already conducted in the latest version of our manuscript. Hopefully, this revised manuscript can reach a standard as supposed. Kindly refer to the following attached file below. 

With best wishes

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

I commend the authors on a thorough revision. Previous comments have been addressed in substance. However, the stylistic qualities of the manuscript are severely lacking. The English prose in this manuscript misses the mark in many ways. Careful and competent copy editing is needed. And the phrase "pandemic age," while needing a "the" in front of it, can be problematic because there have been previous pandemics. So, good forward movement, but new additions (and the full paper) need a copy editing overhaul.