Korean Buddhism in the Era of ‘Spiritual, but Not Religious’: Adapting to Contemporary Society

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This is a well written, well argued paper which deserves to be published. Possibly it not be an earth-shattering addition to the literature in that it could be of relatively limited interest to many of the readers of Religion, but, but it is definitely worthwhile contribution which I have no hesitation in recommending and which, with luck, might encourage further research in the area.

Minor points:

I am uncomfortable with the persistent use the concept of spiritual (etc) ‘need’ throughout the paper. It implies a kind of necessity that I feel is too strong for the argument. I would be happier with words such as want, like, appreciate, desire - or (better) the suggestion that there is a ‘fit’ between the Korean offerings and the susceptibility of SBNR individuals. Or something… ?

Page 5. ' ...5 different types: Dissenters …. '  [you can’t put ‘including’ and then include all five.]

Page 10.  …. ‘insofar as Buddhism ….’

Page 10. ‘made for to accommodate …’??

Author Response

Thank you for your positive and constructive feedback. I have made adjustments regarding all of the points you mentioned.

In particular, I appreciate your input regarding the term spritual need. Although I maintain my opinion that spirituality is a need, it has come across a bit heavy handed. As such I have made adjustments to this article and will keep that in mind when writing other papers of a similar topic.

Thank you.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

See the attachment 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I appreciate the author for thoughtfully addressing my comments. The purpose of the review is to improve the piece and prepare it for publication. The author has responded to most of my feedback by adding a methodological section. However, the need for this addition indicates that the article was initially unclear in its objectives, methods, and expectations. While the goals of the paper are now clearer, the specific problem the author has identified and seeks to address remains vague. Why does the author believe this article is necessary? Moreover, it would be crucial to identify the audience the author has in mind: who are the scholars who may benefit from the reading of this paper? I offer these suggestions for the author’s further consideration.

Author Response

Thank you once again to reviewer 2 for her/his thoughtful and helpful remarks.

As suggested, information has been added regarding why this paper is necessary and for whom it is intended. This information is included in the newly added, fourth and final paragraph of section 1.1 A Note on Methodology.