Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

In “Intervention Program to Reduce Religious Prejudice in Education Settings: A Scoping Review,” the author(s) outline the state of the field in terms of interfaith programs that aim to reduce religious prejudice. Their manuscript explains the theoretical inspiration behind such interventions—namely, contact theory—and gives a detailed account of how they completed their systematic literature review search. The authors deserve praise for identifying this important area of study, their extraordinary attention to detail, and for the very helpful tables and charts included in the paper

Overall, my main reaction is that it seems a misnomer to label this a “scoping” review, as the end result of articles is fairly underwhelming. I understand that this lack of empirical papers to rely on is not something that the author can control, but it also does not seem necessary to publish a literature review in this form. My second reaction is somewhat related—I am unclear on the reasoning behind the timeframe that was strictly imposed on this literature review search. For instance, the authors start out the introduction of the paper by stating, “Religion-based social conflicts have recently become a serious global community challenge for the creation of harmony in relations between diverse groups.” The “recently” in this sentence is then paired with a mention of 9/11 in the following sentence. Given that 9/11 was in 2001, it seems strange to then exclude all articles prior to 2012.

While I do not know if an expanded timeframe for this research area would yield additional data, it seems likely. Any sort of interreligious intervention programs in Northern Ireland likely took place and were documented in the 1990s. If there are more sources of empirical articles to review, this would give the additional benefit of a longitudinal analysis of the state of this field.

Alternatively, I think there is potential here in that the authors could use this rather sizable “hole” in the research to pivot off of and propose future directions. A more robust research proposal and next steps would be a stronger contribution.

Author Response

We have responded to two points of feedback from the first reviewer. Please see the attachment. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The author conducted an interesting study, the relevance of which is beyond doubt. The manuscript is logically and methodically built.
The analysis carried out may be useful for educational institutions.

Author Response

Thank you very much for your positive comments regarding the relevance, methodology and analysis of the study we have conducted. Thus, no changes were needed.

Reviewer 3 Report

The paper reviews intervention programs among students aimed at reducing religious prejudice. The authors critically discuss the terminology used when presenting those programs (interreligious vs interfaith), overview the methods employed to test the impact of the programs, and report their main results. The topic addressed by the paper is relevant. Also, the intention of systematizing the extant studies on this topic is potentially worthy of attention for scholars and practitioners.

There are some issues, however, that should be addressed by the authors.

1. The paper should be restructured, as there is too much text in the tables. A reader is highly discouraged to read tables of three pages, such as Table 3. Also, a reader is expected to fully understand the content of the paper even without looking at the tables. This does not apply to this paper. I suggest the authors include a section in the paper where synthetically explaining each of the intervention programs reviewed, starting from the content of table 3. As well, Table 3 could be substantially reduced by mentioning the title of the paper and the authors, the location/country, and the titles of the intervention programs, for instance. Instead, the whole Table 3 could be moved to the appendix.  
2. An analogous comment refers to the main findings of the intervention programs. In section 3.6 (Impact of the Intervention Programs), the authors should be more explicit in reporting the main findings of the intervention programs, by briefly explaining the impact of each of the intervention programs. At that point, they should conclude on the overall impact of the intervention programs. Even in this respect, they need to be more explicit.
3. As the scoping review is a rather innovative method, in Section 2 (Methods) the authors should better explain their choice to use such a method in light of their research purpose. Also, they should discuss their choice in comparison to other forms of reviews
4. In section 4.2 (Epistemological implications) the authors indicate possible further methods to be used to test the impact of the intervention programs. Among those methods, I think that field experiments (in which two or more groups are randomized to different intervention programs, and one placebo program) must be mentioned, as they allow quantifying the causal effect of intervention programs on the outcome of interest, with a high level of external validity.
5. I think the authors should discuss how people (students) are enrolled in the intervention programs. Is there a selection bias, such as students more inclined to interreligious dialogue are those more likely to be involved in the programs? What is the external validity of those programs? I think the authors should discuss those relevant points.

The paper contains various typos and other linguistic errors (e.g. line 64: “This section may”; line 98: “this article” should be plural; Figure 1: “participant”, “not full text unavailable”; line 264: “or the nature of reality or the nature of reality”; line 326: “to involved in”; line 340: “because in the dialogue process there has been contact and a learning process”). Thus, the paper needs to be proofread.

The authors should also control the numbers in Figure 1 (see Eligibility :N = 23, but in the subsequent diagrams we have N=6 and N=15. 15+6=21, not 23)

All in all, I think the paper should address the issues here reported before being considered for publication. Nonetheless, those issues are more stylistic than substantial.

 

Author Response

We have responded to the points of feedback from the third reviewer. Please see the attachment. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

I appreciate the revisions to the manuscript and the attention to detail provided in their memo.

Overall, my concerns regarding the timeframe of the "scoping review" have not been assuaged. I believe the authors need to do more to justify the limitations of the review period to articles after 2012. It is currently mentioned as a limitation, but I think it needs to be addresses in the front-end of the paper as well-- as part of the framework and overall motivating factor for the manuscript.

Again, obviously the lack of research on this area is a problem beyond these individual scholars. Nevertheless, without additional justification for the post-2012 timeframe, it can give the reader the impression that the "pool" of articles was artificially limited by only selecting articles from the past ten years-- rather than the past 15 or 20, for instance. 

I also agree with Reviewer 3 that at Native English speaker should make additionaly revisions to the manuscript.

Finally, this is a minor issue-- or perhaps a language issue, but "quantatitative" and "qualitative" are not usually described as "methods" unto themselves in the way they are used in the text. Those are more umbrella descriptions. Quantitative methods would include surveys and censuses and perhaps experimental design in some cases. Qualitative methods include ethographic research, in-depth interviews, etc. 

Author Response

Please read the attached file

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

I have appreciated the authors’ effort in dealing with the issues raised in the previous review.
I suggest the following linguistic issues to be addressed:
Line 491: "that through" instead of “the through”
Line 597: “published since 2012” instead of “published in 2012”
Line 624: “be used” instead of “use”
Line 625: “prejudice” instead of “prejude”
Overall, the paper would benefit from a linguistic revision by a native speaker.
Finally,as a final point to be mentioned in the implications for future intervention programs the authors could indicate the possibility of monitoring the long-term effects (and not only the short-term ones) of those intervention programs.

Author Response

Please read the attached file

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf