From Attachment to a Sacred Figure to Loyalty to a Sacred Route: The Walking Pilgrimage of Arbaeen
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
This is a valuable case study. The author has carefully conducted a two-stage in-depth interview, which is worthy of recognition. However, in response to the theme of this study, "from figure… to route", its important theoretical contribution should be to clarify how different attachments to figure produces different meanings of pilgrimage route. However, this study seems to only stay on the evidence of the existing literature, and only proposes four kinds of character cognition that originate from the different psychological needs of pilgrims. It makes the contribution of the paper a bit thin. Here are some suggestions for adjustment:
- In the introduction, it is advisable to describe the historical background, geographic characteristics or ritual of this pilgrimage in order to provide a contrasting understanding with the pilgrims' psychological cognition.
- In terms of literature review, the author did not clearly state the background theory of this research, such as pilgrimage psychology, the theory of religious attachment, etc. Therefore, the theoretical questioning is not clear. The pilgrimage significance of different psychological cognitions and needs will not have a sufficient theoretical basis to explain. It is difficult to have a deep theoretical dialogue with research findings.
- In terms of research methods, a semi-structured interview outline can be presented in the dissertation to clarify the problem awareness of this research. At least three research questions should be included in the discussion: What are the different cognitive attachments of pilgrims to Imam Hussein? How do different cognitions lead to different meanings of this pilgrimage? How do the pilgrims' psychological cognitions translate into pilgrimage journeys with different meanings during the pilgrimage process?
- The historical deeds, the spirit of the place, the pilgrimage rituals, community relations, and other elements in the pilgrimage should be mentioned in the interview. These are also possible points to explore the questions raised in the previous research. It is recommended to re-combine the content of the verbatim content of the interview and rewrite the content and conclusion based on clear and valuable Theoretical questioning.
Author Response
We uploaded a letter of responses.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear Authors,
I hope that my comments will be of help in the improvement and eventual publication of your paper.
It would definitely help if you are to explicitly state that your institution's ethics review board gave you the go-ahead. Even as this is a study of probably minimum negative impact to participants, there must be clear documentation that they gave permission to be interviewed and understood their options, among which is to quit at any point of the study.
This brings me to my next point, which is the vast difference in methodologies between the study's Arbaeen 2014 and 2019 implementations. How was the sampling done in the 2014 cohort? Why the change in the 2019 implementation? These choices must be articulated and defended. What are the respondents' demographics and profiles? I would like to see a summary.
Would it cause too much offense if I suggest that "interceder" as the third role is better expressed by "insurance broker?" The responses you received and cited for this particular section suggest that the pilgrimage is done with a view to negotiating favors and/or forgiveness. Intercessor is the better word, incidentally, if you wish to retain the intercession angle.
I am personally interested in any seemingly non-standard responses, i.e., those that do not fall under the neat classifications you have proposed. If there are any such responses, it may help if these are rendered into the article.
Author Response
Dear reviewer, we uploaded a letter of reply.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
The research completed in 2014 and 2019 is of great interest to pilgrimage scholars. Pilgrims to the Karbala undertake a walking pilgrimage unlike any other that I am familiar with. However, there is an issue with terminology that leads to confusion. Imam Hussein is the object of veneration and the route is the way for the pilgrims to suffer and show their solidarity with all that he stands for. The way it is written, it makes it sound like there is more than one way to the Karbala. Are there many routes? If so please describe. The two ideas--walking and vernation--go hand in hand. I thought the interviewee material and analysis for the essay was excellent. But the introduction with attachment behavior theory was awkward and seems out of place. I would delete lines 40-51 or completely rework it in a more sensitive fashion. One cannot sum up the meaning of, and attachment to, a god in just a few lines. Is this the most appropriate and relevant theory? Think of the veneration of saint's relics in Christendom. The pathway in the Camino--which you mention--is meaningful, and the ritual is somewhat similar, though not nearly as significant in terms of human rights, justice, etc. My major concern with the paper, however, is the English. While for the most part, there is no problem, but in many cases, the tenses are mixed up, or non-words are used, like suacy. 155. Look at lines 117, 118, 124 etc. "We accessed to the participants? Do you mean, "We gained access...'? 156 throws instead of through? 182 'Not everybody is deserved...' should be deserves. These are but a small sample of the corrections that need to be made. Overall, I thought this an important contribution to the literature, but you need to address the attachment theory, routes, and English before it is ready to publish.
Author Response
Dear reviewer, we provided our responses in the attached file.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The author has made quite enough adjustments to the revised opinions, and the context of the paper has been more clear, providing quite good empirical research and theoretical contributions. It is recommended to agree to publish.
Author Response
The last version is attached.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
I am satisfied with the revisions made.
Author Response
The revised version is attached.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
The requested changes have been completed to my satisfaction.
Author Response
The last version is attached.
