The Intertwining and Its Pretext Between the Stories of Solomon’s Copper Carafes and The City of Brass in Ancient Arabic Literature

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This article could be improved for publication, and I have some suggestions:

In the abstract, when the author refers to "numerous Arab novelists," it should be clarified. If they mean "modern Arab novelists," this should be explicitly stated for greater specificity, particularly in the abstract.

The abstract is overly lengthy and needs to be condensed, as academic articles typically have abstracts between 150-250 words. Currently, it exceeds 500 words, which might indicate an unclear thesis. Additionally, the abstract should use present tense verbs like "this article examines" rather than past tense forms such as "this article examined."

 

I strongly suggest revising both the abstract and conclusion of the article. The piece currently lacks clarity regarding its overall direction and thesis. If the main focus of the article is a comparison between two stories of Solomon's copper Carafes and the City of Brass, it's crucial for the author to explain why this comparison is significant and what implications it holds for studying Arabic literature and Islamic intellectual history. 

There is also insufficient engagement with recent scholarly studies on Arabic literature.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

This article could be improved for publication, and I have some suggestions:

In the abstract, when the author refers to "numerous Arab novelists," it should be clarified. If they mean "modern Arab novelists," this should be explicitly stated for greater specificity, particularly in the abstract.

The abstract is overly lengthy and needs to be condensed, as academic articles typically have abstracts between 150-250 words. Currently, it exceeds 500 words, which might indicate an unclear thesis. Additionally, the abstract should use present tense verbs like "this article examines" rather than past tense forms such as "this article examined."

 

I strongly suggest revising both the abstract and conclusion of the article. The piece currently lacks clarity regarding its overall direction and thesis. 
 

 

Author Response

Thank you for the thoughtful and commendable reviews of the article. I greatly appreciated the comments and made some of the corrections requested by the reviewers.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

An accomplished comparative study is on offer, one that intersplices the narratives of Solomon's copper Carafes and the City of Brass and situates them against a backdrop of shared themes and their evolution in the classical Arabic literature. The research design is, in itself, quite logically arranged: the comparisons of text from sources, like Alf Laylah wa-Laylah and earlier classical works, lend themselves to facile consideration of salient Islamic moral and ascetic motifs. However, if the analysis were to go on to state-based theories (like intertextuality or cultural transmission), this would serve to reinforce the deciphering of the symbolic and religious elements. Clearer methodological articulation of the criteria for text selection or systematic thematic comparison methods would add weight to the study in respect of its methodology. Discussion could be broadened to consider cultural perspectives on these stories: for instance, how these stories present medieval Islamic societal values and how they intersect manifestly with pre-Islamic traditions. Inclusion of insights through an interdisciplinary approach—historical or anthropological, for instance—could further bolster the contributions of the study. Finally, a discussion of methodological limitations, like biases in classical sources or differences in oral versus written transmission, would add much-needed critical depth. The above-mentioned changes will further enhance the coherence and impacts of the arguments and reinforce the study's relevance in the Arabic literary and religious studies.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Language-wise, the manuscript generally communicates a clear but could be greatly improved by correcting a number of grammatical and stylistic inconsistencies. These include a measure of subject-verb disagreement (e.g., "the stories... is a significant contribution"), inconsistent capitalization of terms (e.g., copper Carafes), and typographical errors (e.g., ">From" for "From"). Other issues are related to overly wordy or repetitive use of sentences, such as long descriptions in the methodology section that could be cut short for conciseness. Punctuation problems include the omission of commas after introductory clauses, which further reduce readability, whereas italicization of titles is applied inconsistently (Alf Laylah wa-Laylah). There are also other incidents of awkward constructions (e.g., "from a literary perception" vs." perspective") followed by an even greater incidence of passive forms that compromise the writing quality. The arguments are soundly sequenced, and a thorough proofreading would tend to draw attention to the aforementioned difficulties and certainly increase logic, coherence, and general linguistic correctness.

Author Response

Thank you for the thoughtful and commendable reviews of the article. I greatly appreciated the comments and made some of the corrections requested by the reviewers.