The Interplay of Religion and the Visual Arts: A Bibliometric Network Analysis (1991–2023)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The abstract and first pages do not state clearly to which religious art (period and geography) the study applies. This makes it hard for the reader to immediately understand what is the remit of the three Research questions.

Pages 1–3 can be more concise. Indeed, until page 3 the article contains a series of platitudes, quite vague as they are not specific to any period or geography.

Line 12: However, research on [BETTER: the field of] religious visual art in the digital age remains underexplored...

[often there is no spacing before brackets]

Line 98: Silva 2006) lacks first bracket. Check all brackets/spacing in the paper.

Line 157 states "To trace the evolution of religious visual art from its inception to the present...", which sounds too ambitious.

Lines 298–99: check spacing before/after commas

Lines 329–31: Some results of the paper such as the following are important and very useful: "although specific research directions have emerged, no influential specific themes have been formed. Therefore, enhancing the influence of specific research themes is the key to the subsequent development of this field."

Line 358: what is a mentioned as "The book of Taves (2009)", is actually listed in the bibliography as an article, Taves, Ann. 2009. ‘Rereading The Varieties of Religious Experience in Transatlantic Perspective’. Zygon® 44 (2): 415–32.

Line 359: I get the impression the importance attributed to the paper by Măruţoiu et al. (2016) is biased. Moreover, the paper appears to have been published in 2018.

Lines 381–85, Benjamin is presented as an author whose work was published in 2014.

Page 12: Why is there a random footnote? Why Wikipedia?

Table 9: Why does the University of Melbourne appear twice?

Bibliography: where is Elsner 1996? In general, references lack bibliographic detail and are inconsistent with one another. Example: Benjamin, Walter. 2014. Walter Benjamin. Information Theory, with no further information and ... as is Benjamin (d. 1940) had only been published in 2014!

The English too requires a careful revision, as some sections are written much better than others (for example, 4.1, or 4.2). However, generally speaking there is a degree of sloppiness in the presentation that needs to be amended.

Generally speaking, the analytic data are interesting and the results are meaningful.

The English requires a careful revision, as some sections are written better than others (for example, 4.1, or 4.2). However, generally speaking there is a degree of sloppiness in the presentation that needs to be amended.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you so much for your inspiring review. Below are our responses to the comments you have raised. We have highlighted our replies in blue for your convenience in reading.

Comment: The abstract and first pages do not state clearly to which religious art (period and geography) the study applies. This makes it hard for the reader to immediately understand what is the remit of the three Research questions.

Response: Thank you for raising this point. While our research does not focus on the religious visual arts within a specific era or locale, it instead undertakes an interdisciplinary examination of religious visual arts in the wake of digital media's rise since the 1990s.

We acknowledge that our original presentation did not sufficiently specify our research scope. Consequently, we have revised both the abstract and introduction to underscore the significance of the 1990s and the global extent of our analysis. This timeframe is pivotal, marking a transformative phase in both technological advancements and the ways in which religious communities and individuals interact with visual art forms. By adopting a global lens, our study aims to provide a comprehensive view of the digital revolution's impact on religious visual art across various cultural landscapes. This approach enables us to explore how digital media breaks down conventional geographical barriers, affecting religious art in disparate regions. Nevertheless, our research gives special consideration to areas where the influence of digital media on religious visual art is most evident, particularly in North America and East Asia.

Comment: Pages 1–3 can be more concise. Indeed, until page 3 the article contains a series of platitudes, quite vague as they are not specific to any period or geography.

Response: Thank you for highlighting this issue. We have meticulously revised the content on pages 1-3, streamlining the text to ensure only essential information is retained. We have conducted a thorough proofreading session to eliminate any superfluous content, ensuring our presentation is as clear and focused as possible. Additionally, we have added our explanation of the periods and geographical scopes relevant to our study. Line 46-47:” the present study seeks to delve into the complex relationship between visual arts and religion globally since the 1990s, a period marked by the rise of digital media”

Comment: Line 12: However, research on [BETTER: the field of] religious visual art in the digital age remains underexplored...

Response: Thank you. Modified.

Comment: [often there is no spacing before brackets]

Response: Thank you. Modified.

Comment: Line 98: Silva 2006) lacks first bracket. Check all brackets/spacing in the paper.

Response: Thank you. We have checked all brackets and spacing issue.

Comment: Line 157 states "To trace the evolution of religious visual art from its inception to the present...", which sounds too ambitious.

Response: Thank you for your thorough review of our manuscript. We have revised the sentence as suggested.

Comment: Lines 298–99: check spacing before/after commas

Response: Thank you. We have checked all spacing before/after commas.

Comment: Lines 329–31: Some results of the paper such as the following are important and very useful: "although specific research directions have emerged, no influential specific themes have been formed. Therefore, enhancing the influence of specific research themes is the key to the subsequent development of this field."

Response: Thank you for affirming the views expressed in our manuscript.

Comment: Line 358: what is a mentioned as "The book of Taves (2009)", is actually listed in the bibliography as an article, Taves, Ann. 2009. ‘Rereading The Varieties of Religious Experience in Transatlantic Perspective’. Zygon® 44 (2): 415–32.

Response: Thank you for your thorough review of our manuscript. The bibliography has been revised.

Comment: Line 359: I get the impression the importance attributed to the paper by Măruţoiu et al. (2016) is biased. Moreover, the paper appears to have been published in 2018.

Response: Thank you so much for bringing up this issue, as it has inspired our discussion. We reviewed the articles citing this literature, noting that lines 370-75: “Măruţoiu's research has made a significant impact on the field, prompting many scholars to adopt this methodology for their research (Comes 2016; Garrote, Robador, and Perez-Rodriguez 2017). However, some researchers believe that the FTIR technique has limitations (Zhao et al. 2019).” Regardless, whether scholars support or question Măruţoiu et al. (2016)'s study, both outcomes may increase Măruţoiu's academic visibility in the field. Moreover, it is indeed the case that the article was published in 2016.

Comment: Lines 381–85, Benjamin is presented as an author whose work was published in 2014.

Response: Thank you for pointing out this issue. We have revised the relevant references to Benjamin.

Comment: Page 12: Why is there a random footnote? Why Wikipedia?

Response: Thank you for highlighting this issue. We realized that the writing was not standard, and as a result, we have removed this footnote and provided further explanations within the article itself.

Comment: Table 9: Why does the University of Melbourne appear twice?

Response: Thank you for your thorough review. Due to an oversight in the diagramming process, there was a duplication of information. This has now been corrected.

Bibliography: where is Elsner 1996? In general, references lack bibliographic detail and are inconsistent with one another. Example: Benjamin, Walter. 2014. Walter Benjamin. Information Theory, with no further information and ... as is Benjamin (d. 1940) had only been published in 2014!

Response:  Thank you for raising this issue. All missing bibliographic entries have been added. There remains a concern regarding the citation of Benjamin's work from 1935, as it appears to lack a publishing entity. If we were to specify a publisher, the date of the article would change to a more recent one, such as 2014. We agree with your point that citing the 2014 literature could indeed lead to misunderstandings about Benjamin. Therefore, we have opted for the earlier citation on lines 631-32: “Benjamin, Walter. 1935. The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction.” We hope this citation format is acceptable to your journal.

Comment: The English too requires a careful revision, as some sections are written much better than others (for example, 4.1, or 4.2). However, generally speaking there is a degree of sloppiness in the presentation that needs to be amended.

Response: Thank you for raising this concern. We have conducted a thorough proofreading of the entire text and have marked our revisions. We hope that the language issues in the article have now been addressed.

Overall, we are deeply grateful for the insightful comments. We hope that this revised version now meets the journal's requirements.

Reviewer 2 Report

This paper employs bibliometric analysis and visualization techniques to map crucial aspects for a better understanding of the intercrossing domains of visual arts and religion. It addresses three research questions that are answered through the gathered data, regarding the relationship between the two domains of visual arts and religion, the context and the regions in which it happens.

I believe this essay is well-constructed and its findings are significant. Although I am more focused on language-centered articles, studying the relationship between visual arts and religion from qualitative perspectives, I find this essay valuable. For language-centered researchers, it offers insights that aid in essay preparation, while for scholars of religion from a sociological standpoint, it provides valuable data.

As suggestions: In my opinion, the section on data from different countries is less compelling. However, it may hold greater interest for sociologists of religion or analysts of the internet. Incorporating some thoughts on the various internet searches by country could enhance this section.

Furthermore, I strongly recommend further development of the discussion section. There is potential to explore additional ideas based on the data presented in the article. Some aspects that could be briefly added to this discussion section are derived from the following questions: How should researchers of religious visual culture conduct their internet searches? In what manner should they utilize the gathered information? Should these researchers base their investigations on intuition or focus on commonly searched terms? What role do they play in a society where AI is a prominent social element? Does this factor have the potential to change the nature of this subject?

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you so much for your inspiring review, here is the response.

We appreciate your highlighting the pivotal role of language-focused articles within religious studies research. This domain is distinctly characterized by a robust effort towards theory development, where our dataset, derived from language-centered scholarly articles, plays a crucial role. Emphasizing empirical evidence, firsthand experience, and data support, we have employed visualization techniques to offer researchers a macroscopic and tangible perspective. This approach not only facilitates theory formation but also unveils the dynamic interactions within the field. It provides valuable insights not just to scholars in religious studies but also to those in interdisciplinary fields, promoting a broad and introductory overview of this domain. We believe this aligns with the foundational aims of this special issue and represents one of the core objectives of religious scholarship.

Thank you for highlighting the concern of the data of countries. I concur that the data pertaining to various countries might initially appear less compelling in contrast to the insights gleaned from topics and keywords analysis. However, as you rightly pointed out, categorizing literature data based on countries and institutions provides a nuanced understanding of academic evolution across different geographies, which might hold interest for sociologists of religion or analysts of the internet. This stratification is indispensable for researchers embarking on cross-national studies, offering them a foundational framework to understand variances in academic discourse. In alignment with your suggestion, we have enriched our discussion to emphasize how these regional analyses can serve as a pivotal reference for in-depth exploration of the regional influences on religious visual arts. We propose that regional characteristics could potentially alter the trajectory of academic research, influenced by prevailing cultural norms or institutional directives. This perspective not only augments the scope of our study but also underscores the importance of considering geographical nuances in academic research on religious visual arts.

In response to your suggestions for discussion section, we have deepened our analysis and application of our findings. Firstly, we have narrowed our focus to a specific demographic: researchers in the interdisciplinary field of religious visual arts. Secondly, we have elaborated on the manner in which these researchers should employ the information we have gathered, along with how our findings ought to be utilized. Our recommendation is to structure internet research around three primary components: keywords, authors, and regions.

Regarding your mention of AI and its potential future impacts, we acknowledge this as a valuable extension of our discussion. However, we express concern that delving into this area might divert our readers' attention too far from the core conclusions drawn from our data.

Overall, we are deeply grateful for the insightful suggestions you have offered regarding our paper. We hope our article can assist interdisciplinary researchers in their studies of religious visual culture and religious art.