Challenges and Response of Korean Religions to the COVID-19 Pandemic in Korea
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Based on Gallup survey data and social network analysis, this article provides an excellent overview of the ways in which different religious organizations in South Korea responded to COVID-related challenges, particularly compliance with or opposition to government’s quarantine measures. It particularly discusses Shincheonji’s opposition which caused mass infections and added to the negative perception of “religion.” The article also discusses ongoing issues related to COVID-19 and suggests better ways to respond to the increased demand for mental health services etc. The article is well researched and succinctly written. I have just a minor comment: the vagueness of the term “religion” and “religious community.” I would suggest that the author clarifies these terms; it seems that in many cases the author means “Protestantism” but writes “religion.”
P 10, lines 250-251: the author is missing a crucial goal in Buddhist practice: praying for post-mortem benefits, i.e., rebirth in the Pure Land
p. 15, line 452: The term “religion” is applied rather vaguely. The Shincheongji church’s opposition added to negative perceptions of Protestantism? Or the Christian church?
p. 17, lines 498ff: Could the author clarify how this section no 3 relates to the overall topic of the article, which is supposed to discuss reactions to COVID-19? (mentioned in lines 538-541 but this could perhaps be moved up to tie section 3 better to the overall theme of the article)
p.28, line 821: “religious community” => define what you mean; which communities?
Author Response
I appreciate for your invaluable comments and suggestions.
I corrected the followings as you suggested:
1) I would suggest that the author clarifies these terms; it seems that in many cases the author means “Protestantism” but writes “religion.”
=> Specified “Protestantism” rather than using “religion” in several sentences
2) P 10, lines 250-251: the author is missing a crucial goal in Buddhist practice: praying for post-mortem benefits, i.e., rebirth in the Pure Land
=> I added “a crucial goal in Buddhist practice is to achieve nirvāṇa(liberation) from the world of saṃsāra(transmigration) and to be reborn in the Pure Land.
3) p.15, line 452: The term “religion” is applied rather vaguely. The Shincheongji church’s opposition added to negative perceptions of Protestantism? Or the Christian church?
=> I changed: “added to negative perceptions of Christian church in Protestantism”
4) p.17, lines 498ff: Could the author clarify how this section no 3 relates to the overall topic of the article, which is supposed to discuss reactions to COVID-19? (mentioned in lines 538-541 but this could perhaps be moved up to tie section 3 better to the overall theme of the article)
=> moved to the first line of section no 3
5) p. 28, line 821: “religious community” => define what you mean; which communities?
=> I changed to “Korean religions”
In addition, I reviewed my manuscript to be more clear.
Thanks a lot!!
Reviewer 2 Report
This is a very thorough and densely written study of the reactions by religious believers in Korea to the advent of the COVID pandemic. It is full of statistics and charts to accompany the statistical statements. There is perhaps too much information and not enough analytical narrative, but I would not suggest significant changes.
I would make the following points for amendments: 1) The historical description of the religious scene in Korea mentions shamanism, animism and totemism. The first two are elements of the folk religious tradition and not separate religious traditions. Likewise, there is an indigenous tradition of 'ancestor worship' which is not related to Confucianism. Totemism in the strict sense did not exist in Korea. The changsŭng is not a totem pole, in spite of the fact that it is often called that in popular literature.
2) The author/s mention 'Daoism'. As a religious tradition Daoism has never existed in Korea (except briefly under state sponsorship in antiquity). Daoist philosophy (which is entirely separate from the Chinese religious traditions called Daoism) has influenced Korean thought principally through Neo-Confucian thought. But there has never been a Daoist religious tradition with temples and a priesthood. Another thing which is called 'Daoism' is the influence of Chinese folk traditions on Korea, but this is not religious Daoism. It is best not to mention Daoism here as it is irrelevant.
3) The author/s discuss the issue of how information was collected for the census, and for other surveys. Information has been collected by the self-identifcation' method, i.e., with which group does a person identify. It is customary in Korea to equate 'religion' with institutional religions with buildings, formal priesthood, sacred texts and written standardised rituals. This accounts for the large number of 'no religion' responses. This could be both practitioners of folk religion as well as atheists/strict secularists. The census and surveys also ignore the presence of indigenous Muslims. However, the self-identification method does correspond broadly to organisational claims to membership in contrast to Japan where sometimes 180% of the population claim adherence to a tradition. Self-identification is a reasonable means to assess religious adherence.
4) The author/s use both the current Government Romanization system, and the so-called McCune-Reischauer system. I would recommend that all Korean terms be standardised according to the M-R system except for those cases in which another form is used in a source, in which case M-R should be put in brackets. For example: Goryeo (Koryŏ).
5) A final check should be made on the English, which is of a good standard, but occasionally a few words are missing, such as 'of'.
Author Response
I appreciate for your invaluable comments and suggestions.
I corrected the followings as you suggested:
1) The historical description of the religious scene in Korea mentions shamanism, animism and totemism. The first two are elements of the folk religious tradition and not separate religious traditions. Likewise, there is an indigenous tradition of 'ancestor worship' which is not related to Confucianism. Totemism in the strict sense did not exist in Korea. The changsŭngis not a totem pole, in spite of the fact that it is often called that in popular literature.
=> ‘totemism’ is erased : “folk religious traditions such as shamanism and animism…”
2)
The author/s mention 'Daoism'. As a religious tradition Daoism has never existed in Korea (except briefly under state sponsorship in antiquity). Daoist philosophy (which is entirely separate from the Chinese religious traditions called Daoism) has influenced Korean thought principally through Neo-Confucian thought. But there has never been a Daoist religious tradition with temples and a priesthood. Another thing which is called 'Daoism' is the influence of Chinese folk traditions on Korea, but this is not religious Daoism. It is best not to mention Daoism here as it is irrelevant.
=> Daoism” is erased and I used “Daoist philosophy” not using “Daoism”
3) The author/s discuss the issue of how information was collected for the census, and for other surveys. Information has been collected by the self-identifcation' method, i.e., with which group does a person identify. It is customary in Korea to equate 'religion' with institutional religions with buildings, formal priesthood, sacred texts and written standardised rituals. This accounts for the large number of 'no religion' responses. This could be both practitioners of folk religion as well as atheists/strict secularists. The census and surveys also ignore the presence of indigenous Muslims. However, the self-identification method does correspond broadly to organisational claims to membership in contrast to Japan where sometimes 180% of the population claim adherence to a tradition. Self-identification is a reasonable means to assess religious adherence.
=> I changed the sentence: “Although self-identification is a reasonable means to assess religious adherence, it is difficult to get the exact information about religions that are poorly institutionalized or deinstitutionalized and function just as religious morality. The large number of 'no religion' responses could be both practitioners of folk religion as well as atheists.”
4)
The author/s use both the current Government Romanization system, and the so-called McCune-Reischauer system. I would recommend that all Korean terms be standardised according to the M-R system except for those cases in which another form is used in a source, in which case M-R should be put in brackets. For example: Goryeo (Koryŏ).
=>I changed all Korean language into McCune-Reischauer system
i.e.) Shincheonji=> Sinch'ŏnchi
5) A final check should be made on the English, which is of a good standard, but occasionally a few words are missing, such as 'of'.
=> I carefully revised my manuscript as you suggested.
Thanks for your comments!!
Reviewer 3 Report
Please see the attached file.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
I appreciate for your thoughtful and critical comments on my manuscript. I tried to review and edit my manuscript as follows:
< Review of “A Study of the Challenges and Responses of Korean Religions to the COVID-19 Pandemic in Korea” >
1) This manuscript provides a good empirical overview of the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on Korean religions by drawing upon a variety of data-sources, including the analysis of media coverage as well as government statistics. For the most part, this information is extremely useful for scholars and general readers of religious studies, Korean studies, and those interested in knowing more about the social impact of COVID-19. I personally learned a lot from this manuscript and look forward to its eventual publication. However, I believe that several revisions are needed to sharpen its contribution and relevance.
=> I tried to sharpen my writing, as you suggested.
2) First, the most important shortcoming of this manuscript is that there is an important disconnect between the promises in the abstract and introduction and the main body of the text. For example, the introduction says the paper will do the following:
- Show how religious people in Korea, in different ways, perceived and responded to the challenges caused by the COVID-19 pandemic
- ...
But it seems like the second item is largely passed over in the text. For example, the right to religious belief is mentioned in the introduction and abstract but that term is never mentioned again in the rest of the manuscript (only appearing again in the references!). ... Therefore, I think this issue needs to be treated more systematically in the current text (I provide a suggestion on how to organize this below).
=> As you suggested, I have discussed this issue more in detail in the section “3) Freedom of Religious Gathering” (line 273-317)
3) Compounding this problem, the author(s) sometimes include large amounts of descriptive text that are not necessary and further obscure the argument. For example, “Thesaurus of Traditional Religions in Korea” is far too long. I agree that a paragraph giving an overview of major religions in Korea is important but not an entire section.
=> It is necessary to include this section to figure out the situation of Korean religion before the Pandemic. As you suggested, I changed the title ““Thesaurus of Traditional Religions in Korea” => “Pre-pandemic Status of Korean Religions”
4) Likewise, the section “Challenge Faced by Korean Religions in Healing Corona-Blue Symptoms” is over six pages long, but the role of religions is only mentioned in the last three paragraphs. The distribution of the text should be reversed—a few paragraphs describing the psychological impact of COVID-19 (with some citations to survey and scientific data if readers wish to know more) and the rest of the pages giving detailed discussions of how religions in Korea are attempting to solve or address the problem, perhaps noting some key initiatives or efforts.
=> I divided this section into two parts: 1) first, in the section “3) Intensifying Corona-Blue Symptoms (line 414-522)” under “ Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Korean Society and Religions”
=> 2) second, in the section “3) Challenge in Healing Corona-Blue Symptoms”(line 707-780) under “5. Response of Korean Religions to the COVID-19 Pandemic and Related Challenges” (line 513)
5) Perhaps trimming away the off-topic elements of the paper may allow the authors to provide a more coherent introductory description of how COVID-19 came to Korea and the early controversies associated with the Shincheonji Church of Jesus. I think this is important because, unlike other countries, the initial outbreak of COVID-19 in Korea was strongly associated with religious services. But the text does not really convey this to a general reader (who may be unfamiliar with the Korean case).
...As currently organized, it feels like the chronology of the breakout appears in the middle of the paper and almost completely submerges the analysis of the freedom of religion debates that occurred in Korea during the government lock-downs.
=> In the introduction, I added how COVID-19 came to Korea and the early controversies associated with the Shinchonji Church of Jesus and some Protestant churches. Also, I discussed the issue of religious freedom.
6) Linked to my above points, I have a comment about Section 5.1. The author(s) seem to simply describe how a previous study sorted media reports of COVID-19 into types and it feels highly repetitious and descriptive because they do the same thing for both years. I think there is an opportunity here to focus the analysis more on explaining to the reader how and why media reporting about religion changed, not just describing each level. I also think it is unnecessary to describe every single category—especially those completely irrelevant to religion—but instead the author(s) should focus on discussing the ways that media was reporting on religion, the reasons for the changes, and how it mattered.
=> I deleted a couple of figures which is not relevant to religion.
7) Lastly, this paper does not really have a literature review and generally does not have a lot of citations. I think the author(s) could at least try to cite some of the relevant literature on COVID-19 and religion in the introduction to help frame the relevance of the paper for their readers. What are the larger controversies surrounding the issue of COVID-19 and religion (in the Korean context, in the Asian context, in the global context)? Likewise, in the conclusion, it would help to link to some of the broader literature as well to help the reader situate your research in broader context.
=> As you suggested, although it would be better to include relevant literature on surrounding the issue of COVID-19 and religion in the Asian and Global context, I have focused on the issue of COVID-19 and religion in the Korean context. In the conclusion, I mentioned Korea’s response to COVID-19 in comparison with other developed countries.
8) Additional Points
Near the end of the paper when the author(s) talk about changing perceptions of religion they cite many surveys from pre-COVID-19. As a reader, I felt a little confused by the chronological switches going on in these sections. I almost wonder if it would not be better to have a section at the start of the paper that discuses Korea’s religious composition and pre-COVID perceptions of religions. This would show the reader more coherently the status of Korean religions before COVID and let the rest of the paper focus on the changes that occurred due to the pandemic. For example, the paper could start like this:
Introduction -> Pre-pandemic Status of Korean Religions -> COVID Outbreak and Government Responses -> Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Korean Society… (Just a suggestion for the author(s) to consider).
=> It’s a wonderful suggestion to change the order and title of the section. I changed it as suggested.
9) Near the end of the paper there is a strong emphasis on the gendered aspect of depression symptoms, but this creates some dissonances with the reader who suddenly starts to wonder about how different genders perceive and practice religion in Korea. For example, do Korean women exhibit more religiosity than men or vice versa? If the paper wants to make the claim that religions are uniquely placed to deal with the mental challenges of COVID-19 it may help to integrate the issue of gender into earlier parts of the paper. Curiously, section 3 extensively discusses religiosity in Korea based on age rather than gender (which is never mentioned until section 6). Some consistency could help tie these parts of the manuscript together better.
=> I deleted some parts and mentioned it briefly in the Preface. (line 65-71)
10) Some minor typos:
Line 36 – Kore was written instead of Korea
Line 326-335 – Is this a quotation? The text seems a bit stylistically strange. Section 5.1. the last two paragraphs appear to need a citation, or the author(s) need to make it clearer that this is their own analysis and argumentation.
Figure 17 – shoter was written instead of shorter
=> All of these are adequately changed.
Thanks for your invaluable comments!
Round 2
Reviewer 3 Report
Thank you for your revisions to the paper, it was significantly improved. I think it flows much better for the reader now and the structure is more coherent. I note that there is still a lack of a proper academic literature review in this paper, but considering the rich amount of data the paper provides on the religious aspects of COVID-19 in Korea (a topic upon which little has been published), I think it has great value for non-specialists and specialists alike and is worthy of publication.
I think the only major thing that remains is a bit more proofreading of the text, perhaps by an English native-speaker, to tidy up some of the little awkward expressions. These are just some examples…
Line 14 (in the abstract) “delivered the scenes to the public” sounds awkward. Perhaps “how the media portrayed religion in this period” would be better.
Line 62 “This is the question this [article] sought to answer.” (Perhaps you need to insert the word article in that line.)
Line 800-801 “Based upon these facts, Korea is considered as the first to downgrade the threat level it assigns to the virus, effectively lifting the emergency powers that it used to contain it.” (There are inconsistencies in the tense used int the sentence).
