Intercultural and Interreligious Competences of Youth: A Case Study in a Secondary School in Barcelona

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The concise summary of the field and development of your framework lends itself well to a case method. This is an interesting approach to the case of the secondary school in La Prosperitat.

I noted that there are minor issues that require editing, but a reviewer in my opinion could also argue moderate editing is needed. Notably, there is problem of syntax in the first line of the abstract ("... seeking ..."). The topic sentence of a paragraph on p.5 (line 263) must be revised for coherence. In the brief but crucial paragraph of the result section on intercultural competencies, there are syntactical issues (too many subordinate clauses, verbal disagreement, etc.). Table 3 has a key word omitted in its scale, when as one of the survey questions, it is written: "Do you any training in spirituality?" I do not consider these major issues, and good writers of empirical research create these issues from time to time. Fixing them, however, would enhance the article. My advice would be simplification of sentence structure.

While this article stands on its own, let me provide two suggestions in terms of the substance. First, the subject of the case study (the school, in my view) has a very thin profile. For readers, it may be helpful to adumbrate slightly some key characteristics of the school (p.2, line 54) that gives purpose and significance to the lit review that you ably present.

Second, concerning the argument, the perspective and lens of the authors is diminished in the Discussion section. For instance, when the article turns to an assessment of the case study on the available research and scales, a reader discovers that the sample students could be placed "in the fourth stage (acceptance)" of Mohammed Abu-Nimer's taxonomy. I see two issues here. First, this evaluative taxonomy is not sufficiently summarized in the article. On one occasion, there is only a brief explanation of the spectrum, that is, from "negation" to "integration." Arguably, more is needed. Second, and more importantly in my opinion, the authors stop short of making a claim about what is needed in terms of a follow-up, as further research questions or even a practical intervention.

In other words, are the authors arguing for "integration"? What would be activities or signs of a school, or student body, that exemplifies a stage of development that is fulfilling Agenda 2030? These questions simply intended to prompt a response from the authors, to what is already a valuable and thoughtful study.

In my editorial experience, the titles of English works should be capitalized with the exception of prepositions and definite or indefinite articles that do not begin the title or subtitle. This rule applies to titles as they are mentioned or cited in both the text and notes. I understand that this is not the rule for many other languages, with the possible exception of German, for which there would be grammatical changes if a word is not capitalized. For this article, in addition to its title, the notes section should be addressed to be consistent with the style and norms of English-language publications.

The title of this article should be modified stylistically to: Intercultural and Interreligious Competences of Youth: A Case Study at a Secondary School in Barcelona.

Author Response

Dear reviewer, 

Thank you for your suggestions; they are very helpful in improving our article. We have reviewed your comments and implemented the minor revisions suggested, which we outline below: 

We have modified the style in the title. 

We have revised and corrected the syntax in certain areas as indicated. 

We have expanded the description of the case study's context, adding relevant information to better understand the studied reality. 

We have enhanced the theoretical description of the Mohammed Abu-Nimer scale. 

We have extended and deepened the conclusions by merging the section with the results discussion. 

Thank your for your valuable input.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

This is a very well written, argued and presented paper. The paper requires some very slight edits. Another thorough read will fix this issue. The conclusion was a bit of an anti-climax. Perhaps add more vigor to the conclusion by clearly stating what original contributions the paper makes to scholarship, and offer some recommendations for schools, policy makers and future research. 

Author Response

Dear reviewer, 

Thank you for your suggestions; they are very helpful in improving our article. We have reviewed your comments and implemented the minor revisions suggested, which we outline below: 

We have extended and deepened the conclusions by merging the section with the results discussion. 

Thank you for your valuable input.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf