Towards Socially Responsible Consumption: Assessing the Role of Prayer in Consumption
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsCongratulations for an interesting article on the relationship between prayer/spirituality and consumer behavior.
In this research, the Author refers only to one religion: Christianity (which he writes about in lines 196-197). However, there is no information about this in the title or introduction, which would be worth adding, as different religions may have different influences on consumer behavior.
Author Response
Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript.
Indeed, my research relates only to Christianity and unfortunately, as rightly noted, there is no information on this subject in the title or introduction. Therefore, I corrected the article by adding information in the introduction that the article concerns the study of the relationship between Christian prayer and consumer attitude.
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe article is very interesting and inaugural someway.
As a matter of fact, there are two main difficultes that must be improved. To not to be judged as essentialist, in the article difference should be done between religious/not religious people interviewed. Because the article explores prayer in religionS, as a matter of fact the population studied is catholic, a great majority the reader can guess. ISo the article needs to be precised in terms of religious belonings in regard with the population interviewed. If just catholic, the introduction must be clear if it is majority catholic. If not, give some details.
2nd point is represented by the fact that the distinction between what is said by the ethnological inquiry becomes too fast what prayer in religionS could be. For sure the catholic prayer is not the muslim prayer and not just in terms of inner life, also in terms of inner life, but in liturgical terms. Prayer should be described a bit more.
Maybe lines 429-438 should be in the introduction for precising what I said between Religion (essentialist idea of a Religion) and the work that is not essentialist because it is ethnological.
To understand prayer just quoting JPII is not enough, unless it is declared in the introduction. So the reference on prayer must absolutely improved.
Author Response
Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please find the detailed responses below and the corresponding revisions.
Point-by-point response to Comments:
Comments 1: To not to be judged as essentialist, in the article difference should be done between religious/not religious people interviewed. Because the article explores prayer in religions, as a matter of fact the population studied is catholic, a great majority the reader can guess. So the article needs to be precised in terms of religious belonings in regard with the population interviewed. If just catholic, the introduction must be clear if it is majority catholic. If not, give some details..
Response 1: Indeed, my research relates only to Christianity and unfortunately, as rightly noted, there is no information on this subject in the title or introduction. Therefore, I corrected the article by adding information in the introduction that the article concerns the study of the relationship between Christian prayer and consumer attitude.
Comments 2: 2nd point is represented by the fact that the distinction between what is said by the ethnological inquiry becomes too fast what prayer in religions could be. For sure the catholic prayer is not the muslim prayer and not just in terms of inner life, also in terms of inner life, but in liturgical terms. Prayer should be described a bit more.
Response 2: I agree, I have, accordingly, modified the part about the prayer to emphasize this point.
Comments 3. Maybe lines 429-438 should be in the introduction for precising what I said between Religion (essentialist idea of a Religion) and the work that is not essentialist because it is ethnological.
Response 3: I agree, I have corrected the article by moving the indicated part from the Discussion to the Introduction.
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe paper is still in track mode, making it difficult to read. The request is that documents in track mode be sent back to finalise by authors.
Author Response
Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please find the response below and the corresponding revisions.
Comment 1: The article is still in tracking mode, making it difficult for her to read. The authors request that tracked documents be sent back for finalization.
Response 1: Unfortunately, I have no influence on the way the article is presented to reviewers. The visible changes concern the correction of the article according to the editors' instructions.
Reviewer 4 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe article deals with a very interesting topic, the connection between prayers and consumerism; the topic is very interesting and to my knowledge i did not come across this before. The article has great potential however there are some points i want to highlight:
- The article must be presented in a proper way and all the track changes must be removed either accepted or deleted;
- the abstract at the beginning must also include some of the points made later on in the article, i.e line 169
- the tables are good and so are the questions but i think they should be clarified a bit more also for non expert audience/public/readers
- i think also the age of the people in the questionnaire should be taken into consideration as it could be a quite important factor
-some of the concepts at lines 97 till 108 are important but i think they should be re-written as there seem to be a contradiction (please see my comments)
- i think there should be a clear division between the scientific area, i.e statistic and analysis and the concepts expressed in relation to religion and prayers
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
English language is quite good, just pay attention to one mistake in Latin Centesimus one s.
Author Response
Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please find the detailed responses below and the corresponding revisions.
Point-by-point response to Comments:
Comments 1: The article must be presented in a proper way and all the track changes must be removed either accepted or deleted;
Response 1: Unfortunately, I have no influence on the way the article is presented to reviewers. The visible changes concern the correction of the article according to the editors' instructions.
Comments 2: The abstract at the beginning must also include some of the points made later on in the article, i.e line 169
Response 2: I agree, I have, accordingly, modified the abstract.
Comments 3. The tables are good and so are the questions but i think they should be clarified a bit more also for non expert audience/public/readers
Response 3: : I agree, I have, accordingly, modified the tables by adding some explanations like: “Significance is smaller than 0.05 but more than 20% of the cells have an expected abundance of less than 5, so it is impossible to test a hypothesis”.
Comments 4. I think also the age of the people in the questionnaire should be taken into consideration as it could be a quite important factor
Response 4: The research was conducted among young people (students), so the group is not diverse in terms of age. age is not a variable that statistically significantly differentiates the group in this case
Comments 5: Some of the concepts at lines 97 till 108 are important but i think they should be re-written as there seem to be a contradiction (please see my comments)
Response 5: Unfortunately, the comments were not attached to the file and were not visible to me. I asked the editors to re-attach the file, but unfortunately they were unable to help me. I have corrected this indicated part, I hope in line with your comments.
Round 2
Reviewer 4 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe article deals with an interesting topic and it has a great potential to open up a new filed of research in relation to consumerism and ethical/religious believes. I think the article should be published although i would expand a bit chapter 4 with some concrete examples, or case studies if you prefer. However above all i think articles should not be presented to reviewers, let alone to publishers with track changes in it, track changes should either be accepted and rejected before submission.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageThe English language is fine, although i think the article would benefit from a quick reading from a professional reader.
Author Response
Thank you very much for taking the time to read this manuscript.
Following your instructions, I expanded Chapter 4 a bit to include several examples of publications on consumption and religiosity.
As for the way the article is presented, I have no influence on it. I think that the editors' intention is to enable reviewers to assess whether the author has made changes in accordance with the instructions.
