Trends in Online Religious Processes during the Coronavirus Pandemic in Hungary—Digital Media Use and Generational Differences

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Thank you for your submission. I enjoyed reading about the various ways in which religious communities sought to provide meaningful spiritual opportunities for their congregants. The paper, overall, has potential insofar as the topic itself is worthwhile. 

The paper could be improved on a number of fronts. 

First, methodology. This is the most important factor to consider. The paper currently lacks a solid introductory section as well as a methods section. The latter is vital, as it was not clear to me what sort of empirical methods were deployed. Were the comments of Facebook pages collected and put into a qualitative data software? Then, were the data coded as part of a process of  thematic analysis? Were the Facebook groups of Hungary-based organisations or individuals? Which data and conclusions pertain to Hungary alone? Which pertain to international regions? Careful outlining of the methods, central cases, etc is required for this type of qualitative work. Without it, the conclusions seem to be based on mere conjecture, I'm afraid. 

Second, structure and content within each section. In the PDF attached, I have included some comments around the structure and content of certain sections of the paper---particularly those in its first half. Section 1 would do well to touch upon televised religious services and their history (which extends back by many decades). Section 1 ('Summary') might also make distinctions between digital religion in Hungary and digital religion elsewhere. Section 3 ('Theological considerations') would benefit from a structure that brings to the fore the key theological points under consideration. For example, sub-sections on 'spiritual authenticity and digital mediation', 'the extension of sacred space', and 'sacramental theology' could be useful organizing devices.

A third point, which relates to the second point above, pertains to the research design. I have suggested that you bring to the fore more clearly the theological considerations of your study. However, that suggestion depends on the overall research design of the project. Does Section 3 take a theory-driven or top-down approach to your empirical data? Or do those considerations come out of the empirical data (via an inductive route, such as a semi-grounded-theory approach)? These methodological links must be made clear and explicit in order to convince the reader of your conclusions. 

Fourth, the section entitled 'Digitally streamed contents' seems to sit at the core of your empirical methodology. The section, however, lacks clear indication of research design. And the section comes relatively late within the paper, so that even if a methodology section were added near the top, the reader would require a significant reminder about that methodology. Perhaps, then, the 'Digitally streamed contents' section should come earlier in the paper. You might structure the paper as follows: (1) Introduction, (2) Brief literature review, (3) Research question(s) and hypothesis, (4) Methods, (5) Data [aka 'Digitally streamed contents'] and then (6) Discussion [including the content from the sections entitled 'Theological considerations of network presence', 'The challenges...', and 'Changed recipient context']. 

Fifth, great care should be taken when presenting your own analysis and the academic research of others. For most of the paper, I thought that I was reading a very long literature review. But in Section 3 ('Digitally streamed contexts'), I realised that the paper would feature your qualitative research. That was my expectation, at least. As I continued reading, the citations of (or references to) other academics made me second guess whether the section was a presentation of your own original data or mainly a continuation of a literature review. Moreover, even if much of the section contains discussion of what church leaders have said (thus being part of the qualitative data), it was not clear to me why I was hearing from this or that particular person: what in the research design made those particular sources valid ones to reference? 

Sixth, it would help if, in the (future) introduction or methodology section, you include mention of the exact types of religious communities your study will focus upon. It seemed to focus primarily on Christian and Jewish communities. Make this clear from the beginning. The one or two references to Muslim communities within the paper should either be removed or treated as useful complements to the core of the research. 

Seventh, the use of English is generally good throughout. Nevertheless, more attention to English grammar and style must be given. In the PDF attached, I have highlighted some areas that need work. [NB. I have left comments for points that need work on substance (as opposed to grammar); words that only have highlighting (and no comments) should be interpreted as needing grammatical attention only. I do encourage you to read my comments (left in the PDF), as they include remarks and questions concerning substance or content.]

Finally, it remains to be said that I encourage you to continue working on this paper. There is much potential in it: it would be a real service to see how Hungarian religious communities themselves have 'digitally reacted' to the pandemic. Greater clarity around the method and clear indication of cross-national comparisons (when useful) could add much value to the ongoing research into religion and the pandemic. I encourage you to keep working on this to bring it to completion. 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer1!

Thank you for taking the time to read my manuscript and help me improve the text with detailed advice. I will take into account the comments mentioned in the seven points during the improvement (methodology, structure). Unfortunately, I could not find the pdf document mentioned in the review.

“[NB. I have left comments for points that these work are substance (as opposed to grammar); words that only have highlighting (and no comments) should be interpreted as needing grammatical attention only. I do encourage you to read my comments (left in the PDF), as they include remarks and questions concerning substance or content.] ”

Can you help me where to find this PDF document?

Thank you for your work.

Reviewer 2 Report

This work presents an interesting development of the relationship between religion and Covid-19. It deals with the online religion. There are a lot of works on this issue. In this case, the research is very clear and it reveals the different aspect of the religious hungarian context. The theoretical support is very solid. Maybe, it would be a major risk in the eleboration of the reflection. For example, is it worth to study the singularity of hungarian church to understand this issue?. In adittion, could it say something about the core of the religious experience, namely, the mistery? And finally, could the online religion introduce some changes in the place of the religious belief in the secular modernity?

Author Response

Dear Reviewer2!

Thank you for taking the time to read my manuscript and help me improve the text with detailed advice.

Reviewer 3 Report

The article does not present a logical or orderly structure. It must be improved in its entirety. The study methodology is not specified and data is not presented in a prominent way that offers scientific relevance. The article can be improved in its entirety. Nor does it respect the rules or layout of the magazine.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer3!

Thank you for taking the time to read my manuscript and help me improve the text.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The edits made improve the paper. But, in my opinion, further edits would be required for publication. My advice can be summarised in three general points:

First, methodology and discussion. The addition of a methodology section is most welcome, especially since it details the three sources used for data collection. However, the section and the subsequent discussion do not seem to align very well. And alignment will take quite a bit of rewriting. Good alignment for this paper might look like: the method section detailing the data sources as well as the underlying methodological theory (i.e. cultural convergence), then the discussion, which would give the reader a concise account of trends or themes arising from each data source. Moreover, the use (or mention) of cultural convergence theory is not sufficiently addressed: more discussion of it is required. In particular, it is not clear how the current discussion fits within the cultural convergence model. If anything, the current discussion seems to follow thematic analysis -- e.g. themes around theological considerations of network presence.

In sum: I would encourage taking the time to carefully remap the paper so that the method and discussion are tightly woven together. This is not just a matter of rewriting, I'm afraid: it also involves looking back at the data to ensure that they are (1) placed in the right thematic buckets (if using thematic analysis as a framework) and (2) clearly tied to their original data source. 

Second, referencing. I am happy to see more citations throughout. However, some citations need replacing. For example, Line 504 cites a blog from Fordham University. A blog in and of itself is not bad; however (1) such a citation must be to a specific blog post and (2) there must be more authoritative or direct sources to support what Zizioulas has to say about worship during the pandemic. I also find the split between 'References' and 'Sources' at the bottom of the paper to be confusing. 'Sources' should be put within the 'References' list, and they should be given full bibliographic detail. 

Third, I would encourage the author(s) to take time carefully rewrite. Again, this involves going back to the data collected, sorting them out, analysing them via (for example) thematic analysis, and then reflecting upon the findings through the write-up. Failing this careful approach, I'm afraid that Reviewer 3's comments about the work being wrongly executed, poorly organised, etc will still hold. Take courage, and all the best!

Author Response

Thank you for your comments!

Reviewer 3 Report

Aceptar el envio con cambios en la citación y maquetación

Accept the submission with changes in the citation and layout.

Author Response

Thank you!