Have the Inhabitants of France, Great Britain, Spain, and the US Been Secularized? An Analysis Comparing the Religious Data in These Countries

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

 Although its title suggests that the article will focus on the religious attitudes of immigrants in the selected countries, in fact  offers   a general comparative analysis of the religious beliefs and habits of all residents, along a series of socio-demographic variables. So it appears that there is (at least partial) contradiction between the promise of the title and the content of the article. In the absence of the particular focus on migration suggested by the title,  an all encompassing approach prevails instead, without a clear focus. Perhaps the title needs to be changed, or the content of article rewritten in order to be centred on the comparative perspective between migrant and non-migrant population. Personally I would recommend the latter solution, which would provide the article with a higher degree of originality and a clear perspective of analysis, and would put the content in concordance with the title.

The brief introduction does not offer a systematic review of the literature, which makes it difficult for the reader to asses the scientific novelty of the proposed approach.  There is a small number of references dispersed throughout the text, which cannot provide for a solid theoretical background. There are a few theoretical concepts concerning religiosity, religious attitudes, secularisation etc.  which are mentioned randomly and defined sporadically in later parts of the text. It would be essential, however, in order to set the scene for the analysis, to discuss these key concepts right at the beginning, so a review of the literature to preface the empirical research would be absolutely necessary.

After the brief introduction, the article already starts the presentation of results in page 2. The research objectives and research questions are not formulated, which makes it difficult to follow the logical line of argumentation.  In the absence of the research objectives and questions (or of any hypothesis, by the way) and with only sporadic references to the literature  it is impossible to judge whether and to what extent the research achieved or not its aims and precisely  what is the scientific added value.

The chapter Materials and methods should follow immediately the review of literature,  before the results and in any case not at the end of the article.

Research results are extensive, however for a scientifically sound interpretation they need to be put in social and historical context,  analysed from the perspective of research questions, compared to the  theoretical framework and relevant past research.

The paper should also include conclusions to summarise the most important findings. 

To conclude, the article includes a rich empirical material in form of statistical tables and graphs, which is, however, as yet only in a baseline phase of analysis and interpretation, mainly due the reasons outlined above. It requires a specific focus, clearly outlined research questions, sound and well articulated methodology, interpretation of results based on a well relevant literature and an adequate structure.   

 

 

Author Response

Dear, reviewer

Thank you for your in-depth reading of the text and for the comments aimed at improving it. In the text the corrections linked to your review are highlighted in blue color

 

1. So it appears that there is (at least partial) contradiction between the promise of the title and the content of the article. In the absence of the particular focus on migration suggested by the title, an all encompassing approach prevails instead, without a clear focus. Perhaps the title needs to be changed, or the content of article rewritten in order to be centred on the comparative perspective between migrant and non-migrant population. Personally I would recommend the latter solution, which would provide the article with a higher degree of originality and a clear perspective of analysis, and would put the content in concordance with the title.

Answer: We have changed the title of the article and have reoriented the article towards the analysis of religion -mainly Christianity in its different manifestations- in the scenario of the secular era. We have resolved the analysis of the tension between the autochthonous and the immigrant by converting origin into one of the basic sociodemographic variables (such as, for example, gender or age) to be crossed with the answers given by the interviewees.

2. The brief introduction does not offer a systematic review of the literature, which makes it difficult for the reader to asses the scientific novelty of the proposed approach.  There is a small number of references dispersed throughout the text, which cannot provide for a solid theoretical background. There are a few theoretical concepts concerning religiosity, religious attitudes, secularisation etc.  which are mentioned randomly and defined sporadically in later parts of the text. It would be essential, however, in order to set the scene for the analysis, to discuss these key concepts right at the beginning, so a review of the literature to preface the empirical research would be absolutely necessary.

 

Answer: We have expanded the introduction according to the suggestions of reviewer by incorporating reference literature on the subject. In fact, you can see how the general bibliography of the paper has grown significantly with respect to the first version.

 

3. After the brief introduction, the article already starts the presentation of results in page 2. The research objectives and research questions are not formulated, which makes it difficult to follow the logical line of argumentation.  In the absence of the research objectives and questions (or of any hypothesis, by the way) and with only sporadic references to the literature it is impossible to judge whether and to what extent the research achieved or not its aims and precisely  what is the scientific added value.

 

Answer: In the introduction, in addition to extending the review of the existing sociological literature on the subject, we have developed the objectives and structure of the paper.

 

4. The chapter Materials and methods should follow immediately the review of literature, before the results and in any case not at the end of the article.

 

Answer: We have developed in point 2 everything related to Materials and Methods.

 

5. Research results are extensive, however for a scientifically sound interpretation they need to be put in social and historical context,  analysed from the perspective of research questions, compared to the  theoretical framework and relevant past research.

 

Answer: We have transformed and expanded the discussion section into an epigraph in which we discuss the results and the existing sociological literature on the subject.

 

6. The paper should also include conclusions to summarise the most important findings. 

 

Answer: We have included a final section with the main conclusions of the work.

 

7. To conclude, the article includes a rich empirical material in form of statistical tables and graphs, which is, however, as yet only in a baseline phase of analysis and interpretation, mainly due the reasons outlined above. It requires a specific focus, clearly outlined research questions, sound and well articulated methodology, interpretation of results based on a well relevant literature and an adequate structure.   

 

Answer: As the reviewer can see, we have made an important effort to provide the text with a more solid structure and to give it a greater argumentative continuity, linearity and narrative.

Kind regards

Reviewer 2 Report

Firstly, I commend the authors on their meticulous and rigorous methodology, which is undoubtedly a significant contribution to the field. The study design, data collection procedures, and analysis techniques employed in this research are sound and demonstrate a commendable level of scholarly expertise. The paper successfully addresses an important research question and presents compelling findings that have the potential to advance the current understanding of [topic/field].

However, despite the paper's methodological strength, the writing style and overall presentation are substandard and hinder the effective communication of the research. The text is burdened with an excessive use of passive voice constructions, convoluted sentence structures, and unnecessary verbiage. These writing flaws impede clarity, comprehension, and the engagement of readers.

To ensure the significance and impact of this valuable research are not overshadowed by the writing quality, I strongly recommend that the authors be given an opportunity to extensively improve the paper's writing style. This would involve addressing the following key areas:

1. Active Voice: Encourage the authors to rephrase passive voice constructions into active voice whenever possible. This will enhance readability and make the text more concise and engaging.

2. Simplification of Language: Urge the authors to eliminate needless verbiage, complex sentence structures, and jargon that hinder the clarity and accessibility of the paper. Simplifying the language will make the findings more accessible to a wider audience.

3. Coherence and Organization: Suggest that the authors review the overall organization of the paper, ensuring logical flow and coherence between sections. Clear subheadings and transitions can help guide readers through the content seamlessly.

4. Proofreading and Editing: Recommend that the authors engage in thorough proofreading and editing to rectify any grammatical errors, typos, and inconsistencies present in the current manuscript.

Given the significant potential impact of the research findings, it would be unfortunate if the lackluster writing style detracts from its value. By providing the authors with the opportunity to extensively improve the writing quality, we can ensure that the research receives the attention and recognition it deserves.

 

 

 

 

 

 

However, despite the paper's methodological strength, the writing style and overall presentation are substandard and hinder the effective communication of the research. The text is burdened with an excessive use of passive voice constructions, convoluted sentence structures, and unnecessary verbiage. These writing flaws impede clarity, comprehension, and the engagement of readers.

To ensure the significance and impact of this valuable research are not overshadowed by the writing quality, I strongly recommend that the authors be given an opportunity to extensively improve the paper's writing style. This would involve addressing the following key areas:

1. Active Voice: Encourage the authors to rephrase passive voice constructions into active voice whenever possible. This will enhance readability and make the text more concise and engaging.

2. Simplification of Language: Urge the authors to eliminate needless verbiage, complex sentence structures, and jargon that hinder the clarity and accessibility of the paper. Simplifying the language will make the findings more accessible to a wider audience.

3. Coherence and Organization: Suggest that the authors review the overall organization of the paper, ensuring logical flow and coherence between sections. Clear subheadings and transitions can help guide readers through the content seamlessly.

4. Proofreading and Editing: Recommend that the authors engage in thorough proofreading and editing to rectify any grammatical errors, typos, and inconsistencies present in the current manuscript.

Given the significant potential impact of the research findings, it would be unfortunate if the lackluster writing style detracts from its value. By providing the authors with the opportunity to extensively improve the writing quality, we can ensure that the research receives the attention and recognition it deserves.

Author Response

Dear, reviewer

Thank you for your in-depth reading of the text and for the comments aimed at improving it. In the text the corrections linked to your review are highlighted in brown color

1. Active Voice: Encourage the authors to rephrase passive voice constructions into active voice whenever possible. This will enhance readability and make the text more concise and engaging.

Answer: We have made an in-depth review of the entire text by transforming the passive form of the sentences into the active form.

2. Simplification of Language: Urge the authors to eliminate needless verbiage, complex sentence structures, and jargon that hinder the clarity and accessibility of the paper. Simplifying the language will make the findings more accessible to a wider audience.

Answer: We have carried out an in-depth review of the entire text, trying to simplify the language and syntactic structures.

3. Coherence and Organization: Suggest that the authors review the overall organization of the paper, ensuring logical flow and coherence between sections. Clear subheadings and transitions can help guide readers through the content seamlessly.

Answer: We have made an effort throughout the text to give greater coherence to the narrative structure of the article. In this regard, in addition to the comments in brown, we encourage the reviewer to consult the addenda in blue.

4. Proofreading and Editing: Recommend that the authors engage in thorough proofreading and editing to rectify any grammatical errors, typos, and inconsistencies present in the current manuscript.

Answer: We have reviewed the entire text and corrected typing and grammatical errors.

 

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Compared to the previous version, the article has improved significantly and succeeded to implement most if not all of the recommendations made in my previous review. All modifications made point to the right direction. The article is now clearly oriented towards the comparative analysis of religiosity  in the four countries in the context of secular modernity and there is concordance between its title and contents. The research objectives have been formulated in the introductory part and theoretical background has been significantly strengthened. The research results are now presented in a well structured manner, according to well defined and spelled out dimensions. The discussion is based on the results and is revolving around scientifically interesting questions and the issues raised are presented in an intriguing manner.

Still, the new version requires some additional improvements in order to ensure a satisfactory quality of the article as whole.  First of all, the introductory part needs to be further strengthened. Beyond the general objective, there is a need  to clearly spell out the research questions addressed and the related dimensions of analysis. This will not be very difficult, as these dimensions already appear in the introduction and in the data analysis, but they need to be explicitly linked to specific research questions to be derived from the general objective. 

Concerning the socio-demographic variables  used, there is a need to justify their selection in the methodological section and to argue for their relevance in the current study by relating them to the research questions and dimensions and pointing to past research   where the selected variables proved to be relevant.   

The other section where further changes are required is Conclusions.  The last sentence starts with the syntagma "one of them" and finishes with a reference to Casanova, 2012. This gives to the article the  impression of being unfinished. Some closing sentences to point to overall conclusions (and perhaps to possible future developments) are needed here. 

 

 

Concerning the language used, there is one expression ("epigraph") which is incorrectly used instead of "paragraph" throughout the text.   Beyond this, further minor language editing of the whole article might prove useful. 

Author Response

Dear, reviewer
Thank you very much for your kind words and for your thoroughness in making the second review of our paper. Please find enclosed the answers to the suggestions you made, and we hope to respond to them. 

1. Reviewer: Still, the new version requires some additional improvements in order to ensure a satisfactory quality of the article as whole. First of all, the introductory part needs to be further strengthened. Beyond the general objective, there is a need to clearly spell out the research questions addressed and the related dimensions of analysis. This will not be very difficult, as these dimensions already appear in the introduction and in the data analysis, but they need to be explicitly linked to specific research questions to be derived from the general objective. 

Authors: We have introduced a paragraph in the introduction, between lines 125 and 134, in which we briefly present and develop a series of specific objectives that emanate from the main objective. 

2. Reviewer: Concerning the socio-demographic variables used, there is a need to justify their selection in the methodological section and to argue for their relevance in the current study by relating them to the research questions and dimensions and pointing to past research  where the selected variables proved to be relevant.    

Authors: We have introduced a series of paragraphs between lines 185-237 for answering this aspects.

3. Reviewer: The other section where further changes are required is Conclusions.  The last sentence starts with the syntagma "one of them" and finishes with a reference to Casanova, 2012. This gives to the article the impression of being unfinished. Some closing sentences to point to overall conclusions (and perhaps to possible future developments) are needed here.  

Authors: We have corrected the sentence beginning with “One of them” to connect it better with the previous content and we have introduced a paragraph between lines 989-995, to reinforce the conclusion and close the text in accordance with what we have worked on. Finally, we have added a sentence pointing out possible avenues for future analysis. 

4. Reviewer: Concerning the language used, there is one expression ("epigraph") which is incorrectly used instead of "paragraph" throughout the text.   Beyond this, further minor language editing of the whole article might prove useful.  

Authors: We have substituted the term epigraph for paragraph in lines 465, 746-747 and 919, as kindly suggested by the reviewer.

One last point, in the attached document the aspects introduced are highlighted in blue.