Evangelical Belief and Nonviolent Behavior in Chilean Inmates

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This is an interesting and clearly written paper. It is concise, addresses one main message and provides clear evidence from the empirical findings. Overall, the arguments are sound. 

There are two main issues that I would like the authors to reflect upon:

• First, it seems that the argument of instrumentality makes inmates an exception: unlike non-inmates who use religion properly (I'm exaggerating), inmates use religion in an instrumental way, only to their benefit. However, one could question whether not all religious people in one way or another look for community, support, etc. when being religious. In other words, it seems that the authors attach more "authenticity" to the knowledge about the dogma and practices of a religion than to the communal aspect, which seems instrumental. And yet we have seen during the pandemic how community seems to be one of the central elements of religious life.
• Secondly, while reading the text, it seemed to me that the authors use Catholic-inspired vocabulary to refer to Evangelicals. They speak of priests while in Evangelical communities it is more common to speak of the term "pastor". Similarly, they wrote the Church, in capital letters, as it is often used in the case of the Catholic Church. However, there is not one Evangelical church, there are thousands of churches.  

Author Response

Dear Reviewer, 

Thank you so much for your suggestions. I believe them improved the quality of the manuscript. 

• ....while reading the text, it seemed to me that the authors use Catholic-inspired vocabulary to refer to Evangelicals. They speak of priests while in Evangelical communities it is more common to speak of the term "pastor". Similarly, they wrote the Church, in capital letters, as it is often used in the case of the Catholic Church. However, there is not one Evangelical church, there are thousands of churches.  
• The term priest was changed to pastor.
• The church in capital letters was changed.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

This is a well-written report of good research. I have only minor and constructive criticism to offer.

 

1. minor grammar/typos

It does need another final edit to catch such errors as the curious conclusion to a sentence in Line 84 and “the mother represents the church” in Lines 259-60.

 

2. “professionals” / “they”

Footnote and/or otherwise identify the people referred to in the two sentences in Lines 26 to 33.

 

3. language

Were the interviews…was the research conducted in Spanish. Say so.

If language and dialect were an area of any concern in the research and the write-up, say so.

 

4. “only” – Line 128

Generally it is better to report the statistic without comment or modifier, especially in this case where some readers, coming from a different perspective or research background might think that 24% is actually a surprisingly high number.

 

5. “priest” Line 144ff

“Priest” can have many meanings in the scholarship of religion and society: Roman Catholic clergy, Weber’s Priest (as opposed to Prophet), priests in small scale societies in contrast to shamans, etc.

The meaning is not clear here.

Clarify.

And/or introduce the word Chaplain if appropriate.

It may be the best word for referring to religious functionaries in any institutional setting, including prisons.

And if chaplain were listed among the keywords, it might connect this article and this research with related research and interested scholars.

I think this is very important.

 

6. Durkheim and Weber

The first paragraph in Conclusions refers to social integration and the content of a spirituality. These are the main focus of each of the two intellectual “grandfathers” of the study of religion and society, Durkheim and Weber, respectively. Again, it might be helpful to connect this research with those two historic streams of scholarship in a sentence or two. It might lead the authors to connections with other scholars.

 

Thank you for this interesting report.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer, 

Thank you very much for reading our manuscript, we believe that your suggestions makes us improve it.

Reviewer 2: comments	Authors´ Answers
minor grammar/typos It does need another final edit to catch such errors as the curious conclusion to a sentence in Line 84 and “the mother represents the church” in Lines 259-60.	The sentence was rewritten to be more clear.
2.               professionals” / “they” Footnote and/or otherwise identify the people referred to in the two sentences in Lines 26 to 33.	The professionals’ concept was changed for social workers and psychologist to be more specific.
3.          language Were the interviews…was the research conducted in Spanish. Say so. If language and dialect were an area of any concern in the research and the write-up, say so.	A sentence was included to explain that the native language was Spanish.
4.    “only” – Line 128 Generally it is better to report the statistic without comment or modifier, especially in this case where some readers, coming from a different perspective or research background might think that 24% is actually a surprisingly high number.	The word only was removed.
5.    “priest” Line 144ff “Priest” can have many meanings in the scholarship of religion and society: Roman Catholic clergy, Weber’s Priest (as opposed to Prophet), priests in small scale societies in contrast to shamans, etc. The meaning is not clear here. Clarify. And/or introduce the word Chaplain if appropriate. It may be the best word for referring to religious functionaries in any institutional setting, including prisons. And if chaplain were listed among the keywords, it might connect this article and this research with related research and interested scholars. I think this is very important.	The word “priest” was changed according to the reviewer´s suggestion: Chaplain.
6.  Durkheim and Weber The first paragraph in Conclusions refers to social integration and the content of a spirituality. These are the main focus of each of the two intellectual “grandfathers” of the study of religion and society, Durkheim and Weber, respectively. Again, it might be helpful to connect this research with those two historic streams of scholarship in a sentence or two. It might lead the authors to connections with other scholars	We added information about Durkheim´s view of religion, which gives support to the findings.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf