Navigating the Complexities of Inter-Religious Peacebuilding: Implications for Theory and Practice
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDe paper is very repetitive. It could be half as long and much more focused, using the theory, which is quite simple, to apply to the case of Nigeria.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageThe language of the article is poor. Sentences are at times unfinished and repetitive.
Author Response
Comment 1: De paper is very repetitive. It could be half as long and much more focused, using the theory, which is quite simple, to apply to the case of Nigeria.
Response: The paper has been revised and the theory has been applied to the case of Nigeria
Comment 2: The language of the article is poor. Sentences are at times unfinished and repetitive.
Response: The paper has been edited by MDPI English editing services.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsPlease find the comments and suggestions in the attachment.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Comments 1: Please adjust methodology of the paper with the abstract (line 13). Where are the findings
from the hybrid interviews discussed in the paper?
Response: The methodology of the paper has been adjusted. Also, the paper has been revised to respond to the other comments of the reviewer.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe article "Navigating the complexities of inter-religious peace building: implications for theory and practice" is interesting and I agree with the premise to reintroduce and integrate dimensions of religion, and localism into the peace building literature.
That said I am not entirely sure about the novelty of this argument, as critical discussions of the role as well as absence of religion within development studies, humanitarianism, and conflict studies existed for a long time. See for instance:
Devine, J., Deneulin, S. and Brown, G. 2015, Contesting the Boundaries of Religion in Social Mobilization, Journal of South Asian Development, 10(1), 22–47.
Candland, C. 2000, Faith as Social Capital: Religion and Community Development in Southern Asia, Policy Sciences, 33(3–4), 355–374
Here for a critical engagement with localism/ local turn, which could be elaborated further.
Enria, L. (2019), The Ebola Crisis in Sierra Leone: Mediating Containment and Engagement in Humanitarian Emergencies. Development and Change, 50: 1602-1623.
In general, I miss an in-depth discussion as to why this neglect (religion) has happened, which may need a discussion of various secularisation and modernisation paradigms within the field, but also how that is related to debates of “the return of religion”, de-secularisation and post-secularity in the global north and south, where religious actors and movements certainly claim a stronger role in the public domain, at the micro and macro level.
Given that this article partially about approaches to inter-religious peace-building, a discussion of the global interfaith movement and its relations to global conflicts as well as offered solutions could be discussed.
More broadly the paper would benefit from discussing more empirical examples, which would make for a more engaging read. The abstract and policy-like writing style makes it somewhat hard to follow. Country examples and case studies could be discussed in much more detail, to bring out inconsistencies and tensions in the existing literature.
The paper has also a strong normative underpinning, which sees religion as a force for good, but thereby ignoring the extensive literature, which sees religion as a source of conflict, or at least in a more dynamic or ambiguous light. While the author can still side with the religion as a source for good argument, an academic paper, especially one which relies exclusively on secondary literature, needs to tease out that discussion. Delving into the longstanding debates within the sociology of religion, but also other social sciences could be beneficial in this context.
Given the dense writing style, the absence of important debates about the relation between religion, interfaith activism, (de)secularisaiton and humanitarianism and lack of empirical discussions, I have to admit that I was not fully convinced about the contribution and novelty of this article, but I hope that my comments can help to improve the paper, nonetheless.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageThe article would benefit from less extrapolation, and from detailed discussions and more concrete examples, and case studies.
Author Response
Comments 1: More broadly the paper would benefit from discussing more empirical examples, which would make for a more engaging read. The abstract and policy-like writing style makes it somewhat hard to follow. Country examples and case studies could be discussed in much more detail, to bring out inconsistencies and tensions in the existing literature.
Response: The paper has been revised and it includes country examples.
Comments 2: The article would benefit from less extrapolation, and from detailed discussions and more concrete examples, and case studies.
Response: The paper has been revised to include concrete examples. MDPI English editing services edited it.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe article is much improved. It is still a little repetitive, but it makes a good argument for the importance of a neo-liberal peacebuilding approch.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageThe language is much improved. Here and there, there are still some grammatical mistakes, verbs missing, etc. The paper should be edited again once the changes are taken out.
Author Response
Comments 1: It is still a little repetitive
Response: I have reworked the repetitions.
Comments 2: Here and there, there are still some grammatical mistakes, verbs missing, etc. The paper should be edited again once the changes are taken out.
Response: The Authorservices re-edited the paper after I made the changes.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
