Use of Causal Language in Studies on the Relationship between Spiritually-Based Treatments and Substance Abuse and Relapse Prevention

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Feedback on Religions 1482809, November 2021

This project employed sound methodology pertinent to the stated topic. The report was written in a well-ordered, engaging style, with very important conclusions offering good advice to other researchers.

For the great part, this paper was clearly written, with just a few tweaks recommended, before this paper is well worthy of being published:

Line 102                1.3 not a second ‘1.1’              

Line 104                suggest either state ‘…relevant variables in this regard’ or expand this sentence to indicate in what relevant specific fields.

Line 115                  suggest that a new paragraph should be inserted here leading with ‘Spiritual beliefs and practices…’ as there appears to be a new concept being discussed.

Line 183                  ‘…was reached by using (or ‘with the help of’) a third researcher.’

Line 233                  suggest re-wording to ‘…disclaimers were not located immediately following causal claims…’ instead of ‘right after’, which could have other connotations.         

Line 243                  suggest re-wording to ‘…the research supports the causal claims.’ As ‘backs up’ can mean blockage.

Line 281                  ‘Use of these guides should (not ‘will’) instruct…’ as the choice to use these guides involves both the researchers’ willingness and ability to be informed.

Line 419                  ‘McClintock…’                     

Line 442ff               *Saari, Che Z., Basirah, Sharifah, Muhsin, Syed, Syukri, Mohd, Abidin, Zainal, Mohammad, Syed, Syed, Hilmi, Rahman, Abdul, Ahmad, Siti S, Ab Raman, Zaizal B, Manawi, Mohd, Akib, Mohd M.M., Hamjah, Salasiah H., Farooque, M. Hasyiar, Tamkin, Joni, and Abd R. Rusdi. Critical reviewof Sufi healing therapy in drug addiction treatment. Journal of Critical Reviews 7: 1155-1160.doi: 10.31838/jcr.07.05.220

Line 471                  Xie, Yu, Wang, Kai, and Yan Kong. 2021.  Prevalence…

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

We want to thank the reviewer for the thorough revision, suggestions, kind words, and a very keen eye. All the suggestions have been accommodated, as they improve the reading of the manuscript. The revisions were marked up using the “Track Changes” function in the word version of the new manuscript.

Reviewer 2 Report

This is an area that needs rigor and attention and I encourage you to continue.

The research is fine and quite useful.  The author says clearly, "The use of inappropriate causal language in non-experimental studies remains an issue in several (if not all) scientific disciplines."

I think the author is clear in saying, "Scientific claims about a given study must be in accordance with the methodology," and "...honesty when interpreting results leads to more  rigorous science and should be always welcomed."

Author Response

We want to thank the reviewer for the thorough revision and kind words. We will continue researching about the topic. Honored