Infrastructural Breaks on the Road from Birth to Death in Contemporary Russia

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear authors, thank you very much for your interesting article! I have no criticism. Authors summarizes the very important problem of infrastructural breaks in two systems — the funeral market and maternity care - in contemporary Russia. They conclude that contemporary Russian funerals and childbirths represent a specific format for the interaction of its participants with the infrastructural environment. The participants consider the dysfunctional infrastructure environment as a natural condition. 

Author Response

 We appreciate your feedback – thank you so much for a positive review.

Reviewer 2 Report

While your article was, overall, truly interesting and had the potential of bringing into discussion some sensitive topics (death, birth) using a fascinating methodology and adopting a comparative perspective, I believe that it did not fulfil its promises (comprised in the abstract and in the first part). I would not advise its publication in the form it is now, but I would want to read an improved version of it in order to have the possibility to recommend its publication in the journal. For this, I would suggest the following:

1. elaborate more the theoretical/conceptual part and also be careful at how you express ideas (probably a matter of EN, but you cannot say that infrastructure is a field of research); here, please be clearer in explaining what anthropology of infrastructure can bring in terms of research to the study of death (death studies) and childbirth. Moreover, a little comment about why dying and coming into the world are important to be studied together would give more consistency to your approach.

2. there is not a true conceptual symmetry between childbirth in Russia and death in Russia in your study, in the sense that you talk about funeral market (market = private sector) and childbirth institutions (i.e., belonging to the State, public sector). I would suggest clarifying this aspect, otherwise it may seem that you simply joined 2 studies for the sake of obtaining an article. It would be great if you could discuss how death can be a matter of competitivity, of the market, while childbirth not (even if, I am wondering, are there no private hospitals for childbirth in Russia?)

3. I found the entire use of ‘ritual’ in your study to be rather shallow. Insisting more on the ritual parts of death and giving birth in relation to their specific infrastructure would be mandatory. Also, try to relate more to the specific (aims, rationale) of the journal in which you want to publish. My impression is that you massively neglected this aspect.

4. I don’t want to bring discord in your research team, but the part on death is way better than the part of childbirth. Too much quoting on the part on childbirth and less analysis.

5. the conclusion part is way too short and relies too much on the arguments of the others. I would have expected a part where you discuss some more the similarities between the funeral infrastructure and the childbirth infrastructure. Try to be more personal and more convincing either in the conclusion part or by writing a new section dedicated to comparisons between the 2.

6. in some parts of your study the EN is not good, or not too good. It seems that you did not proofread all the article (e.g.: you cannot ‘demonstrate problems’). A throughout proofreading is necessary.

Author Response

We thank a reviewer for such detailed feedback and fruitful comments and suggestions, which we have considered in the text in the following way:

1. We have elaborated our conceptual framework (pp. 2-3) and tried to address the importance of studying death and birth together (both, in the introduction and the conclusion). We emphasized that both of our research objects deal with bodies, and inevitably – with materiality and infrastructures; thus, we refer to the anthropology of infrastructure and sociology of repair in order to explain, what exactly, comprise rituality in these no longer sacred and religious events.
2. We have articulated the basis for the comparison of two systems and have added a few conclusions on the results of this comparison in the discussion (p. 10). In particular, we argue that though these systems are arranged and financed differently, they both are regulated by the state, and shaped by the poorly developed infrastructures. There was a small remark on the paid or private maternity services, which are available only in capital cities and a few regional centers of the country (p. 7)
3. In the current version of the paper, we tried to be more consistent in the term usage of ‘ritual’ and have reconceptualized our framework (p. 2-3) in order to be more precise and fit the aims and scope of the journal.
4. We have reduced quoting and enlarged analysis in the section ‘The infrastructure of maternity care in Russia’ (pp. 7-10), and tried to be more consistent in the presentation of the data across both empirical parts.
5. We have added the part ‘Discussion: overcoming in Russian culture’, which includes the comparison of the funeral and the childbirth infrastructures.
6. We have accomplished just a mild language check, as we had only a few days to proceed with the revisions, but we plan to send the text to a proofreader, if (and as soon as) it is accepted.

These and some other edits can be tracked in the file attached

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The paper is devoted to the issues of maternal care and the funeral market in Russia which are considered in the context of organizational studies. There is no religious studies problematization. Thus, it doesn't fit the profile of the journal, declared as a study of religion. 

The other important problem is the absence of references to classical and contemporary research in these spheres. 

Author Response

We appreciate all reviewer’s critical notions and suggestions and have tried to consider them while making edits. We have improved the theoretical framework of the paper, and made it closer to the aims and scope of the journal. We have also enlarged the list of references with classical works and more recent studies. All changes can be tracked in the file attached.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Much improved, excellent, actually. 

Thank you.