Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article under review seeks to explore how religion, spirituality, and non-religion can be discussed and taught in public schools (primary and secondary education) in secular contexts. In particular, it provides a case study of the "Culture and Citizenship in Quebec" (CCQ) educational program that has recently been introduced to public schools in Quebec, Canada, as a replacement for the earlier "Ethics and Religious Culture" (ERC) program.

The manuscript addresses a very relevant topic, whose importance goes beyond the context of Quebec, and thus has a potential to make a significant contribution to scholarship, specifically the disciplines of social, religious, and/or pedagogical studies.

However, there are a number of issues that I believe the authors should consider to make their article publishable:

·       The methodology used by the authors in the article (particularly for their case study) should be stated explicitly, ideally in the Introduction

·       While the authors maintain the position that secularism and laicite are not necessarily antithetical to religion (which is a perfectly legitimate position), it would be good if they include a section containing a discussion that would address differing views on secularism and laicite; a more sustained engagement with relevant academic literature would be appropriate here (for example, to be integrated within or after the lines 155-162

·       At times, the section 2.1 on Religious Literacy reads more like a promotional material rather than an academic text (see especially lines 145–154) - I recommend opting for a more academic style

·       The criticism addressed to the Ethics and Religious Culture (ERC) course remains vague and anononymous – the “critics” are not cited and referenced (see lines 175–187) - I recommend direct engagement with relevant academic literature (in other words, name your interlocutors!)

·       The section on the ERC and CCQ as such does not engage academic literature much - it would be good if some relevant academic literature can be cited in this section.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 1,

Thank you for your valuable comments. We have discussed each of your comments together and our responses are noted below. 

Comments 1: The methodology used by the authors in the article (particularly for their case study) should be stated explicitly, ideally in the Introduction

Response 1: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment and have articulated the methodology in the introduction as recommended, through the sentence: “Thus, we frame, understand, and analyze the Quebec context using conceptions of secularism, laïcité, and religious literacy.” The use of religious literacy to analyze the CCQ as a case study in relation to the full conversation is also now explicitly explained in the introduction. 

Comments 2: While the authors maintain the position that secularism and laicite are not necessarily antithetical to religion (which is a perfectly legitimate position), it would be good if they include a section containing a discussion that would address differing views on secularism and laicite; a more sustained engagement with relevant academic literature would be appropriate here (for example, to be integrated within or after the lines 155-162

Response 2: Engaging in a conversation about differing views on secularism and laicite is valuable but, after much thought and discussion, we decided not to include a new section on this discussion because it would require significant detail, which could potentially distract from the focus of the article; The main point of the conversation is not to understand the nuances of secularism or laicite but to understand how differing perspectives and structures in society influence a conversation about religion in the classroom overall. Instead, we have added a conclusion to clarify and affirm this focus.

Comments 3:  At times, the section 2.1 on Religious Literacy reads more like a promotional material rather than an academic text (see especially lines 145–154) - I recommend opting for a more academic style

Response 3: Thank you for your insight and feedback. We have included more citations and rephrased text in many parts of section 2.1 to reflect the academic foundation and background of this work more fulsomely. 

Comments 4: The criticism addressed to the Ethics and Religious Culture (ERC) course remains vague and anononymous – the “critics” are not cited and referenced (see lines 175–187) - I recommend direct engagement with relevant academic literature (in other words, name your interlocutors!)

Response 4: As scholars familiar with this conversation and the critics, omitting the critics was an oversight on our part. We have included citations about the different types of critics and perspectives in section 3 - definitely valuable for readers who are new to the ERC and would like to learn more. Thank you.

Comments 5: The section on the ERC and CCQ as such does not engage academic literature much - it would be good if some relevant academic literature can be cited in this section.

Response 5: Thank you for this feedback. We agree and have added more academic citations regarding ERC and CCQ throughout the manuscript, apart from the section where we describe and summarize the CCQ curriculum, and analyze it in relation to the religious literacy framework.

Thank you,

The authors

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Please include the conclusion of your paper. The application can not end the paper

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 2,

Thank you for your valuable comments. We have discussed each of your comments together and our responses are noted below.

Comment 1: Line 22, more than 3 articles you use et al

Response 1: Unfortunately, our version of the manuscript shifted slightly from the version you reviewed; we weren’t able to locate the exact detail you mentioned on line 22. However, we corrected this in Section 2.1 where there are two et als used. Both have been clarified with more detail. Thank you for highlighting this detail. 

Comment 2:  Line 38- the word recently has to be revised as the meaning of the article will change with time 

Response 2: Thank you. This has been corrected to remove the word “recently” and the current year 2024 has been added instead. Your guidance has also led us to revise another part of the text in section 4.1 so that the meaning of the article can maintain relevance for a longer period of time. 

Comment 3: Line 313- 2SLGBQTI+ write in full first

Response 3: That is a great idea. Thank you. We have written it in full so that readers not familiar with the acronym can understand it fully. 

Comment 4: The paper ended with an application. The authors are encouraged to add a

conclusion to their paper as the application cannot end an article.

Response 4: We agree with this and have added a conclusion to summarize our key ideas from above and emphasize essential points. Thank you.

With appreciation,

The authors

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This article explores the shift to the Culture and Citizenship in Quebec (CCQ) program and its implications for the study of religion.  The article is a cogent, coherent statement of how the CCQ developed from the predecessor Ethics and Religious Culture (ERC) program and defines an emphasis upon religious literacy in secular societies.  It is a well-written study and fulfills the goals of the special issue on Religious Diversity and Social Studies Education, particularly the goal of clarifying how religious literary contributes to global citizenship.  The article is obviously written by one or more experienced researchers and reporters and needs no further revision.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 3,

Thank you for your encouraging feedback. We appreciate your review and time.

Sincerely,

The authors