The Philippines: Open Spaces for Catholic Worship
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
Greetings and thank you to the esteemed authors,
The article has been thoroughly reviewed. The following points for improving the quality of the article are provided, all of which need to be addressed in the article:
- The article must be revised for grammatical correctness throughout the text.
- The title of the article is not engaging - a more reader-friendly title related to the subject and main objective of the article should be chosen.
- The research background should definitely be added to the article.
- The article lacks a scientific research method and it is necessary to follow a research method in the article. Currently, the article is written descriptively and as a review.
- The article lacks analyses, charts, and analytical tables, and is more of a report.
It seems the main issue with the article is the lack of a strong scientific and analytical research method, therefore, without a research method, the structure of the article is considered more of a report.
Upon incorporating the suggested revisions and amendments, the article will be eligible for reevaluation for publication.
Best of luck.
Comments on the Quality of English Language
The English could be improved to more clearly express the research.
Author Response
Comment 1: The article must be revised for grammatical correctness throughout the text.
Reply 1: Thank you for pointing this out. We have reviewed the text in its entirety. You can see the changes by clicking on Revisions.
Comment 2: The title of the article is not engaging - a more reader-friendly title related to the subject and main objective of the article should be chosen.
Reply 2: I honestly do not share this opinion. I think the title of the article could be improved, of course. But I am convinced that the current title is concise, reflects the content quite well and has a certain appeal.
Comment 3: The research background should definitely be added to the article.
Reply 3: In my opinion, the background information for the article is in the bibliography cited, especially the one by myself, which is easily accessible. I think that repeating it here would make the text excessively long.
Comment 4: The article lacks a scientific research method and it is necessary to follow a research method in the article. Currently, the article is written descriptively and as a review.
Response 4: I partially agree with this comment. The article is, at times, a review article, since that is exactly its objective: to open a barely explored field and put on the table a series of examples that show the different attitudes that Filipino architects have had when facing an open-air church project. On the other hand, most of the articles in the academic area in which I work use this same scheme.
Even so, the title of the initial sections (Objective and Method) has been modified, and a new section has been incorporated before the conclusions called 'Results', where the contributions that have appeared throughout the text are collected and discussed.
Comment 5: The article lacks analyses, charts, and analytical tables, and is more of a report. It seems that the main issue with the article is the lack of a strong scientific and analytical research method, therefore, without a research method, the structure of the article is considered more of a report.
Reply 5: I agree, in part, with this comment. I do not know why the editor did not attach the images, which in this case, are an essential support to understand the text. In the new version, the images are already incorporated into the body of the text. I hope that now everything is better understood.
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE QUALITY OF THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE
Comment 1: The English could be improved to more clearly express the research.
Reply 1: A complete revision of the English language has been carried out.
ADDITIONAL CLARIFICATIONS
I sincerely thank the reviewer for his careful reading of the article and his contributions to its improvement.
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
The article is very well written, and its arguments and intentions are clear. It is, however, by and large, a historical and descriptive account of Catholic worship open spaces in the Philippines. In this regard, it could be said that doing such a job is enough to grant the publication of this paper -- something i would agree with. For it will do a lot of good to have this information recorded and widely shared in journal like Religions. However, there is a missing opportunity to go deeper. For example, could the author visually present and analyze the building typologies that they are describing? The author says that they intend to offer a 'cartography' of Catholic worship deployed in/as open spaces but as presented, this is very hard to see. For example, none of the 20 images were offered to me as a reviewer to verify many of the descriptions and claims made. But, even if they had been provided (and, frankly, i don't undertsand why i haven't given that critical information!), I would assume that these images are just photos of the structures and spaces being referred to. I'd think that a series of architectural plans and sections (or 3D axonometrics) place side by side (at the right scale) could be added to this paper in order to fully visualize some of the commonalities and differences between the different buildings/spaces being dicussed in the paper.
Offering such architectural information would go a long way to make the work all the more useful and significant and something i would encourage to do. If done, i'd move the article to much higher rating in all the reviewing categories.
Author Response
Comment 1: I'd think that a series of architectural plans and sections (or 3D axonometrics) place side by side (at the right scale) could be added to this paper in order to fully visualize some of the commonalities and differences between the different buildings/spaces being dicussed in the paper.
Response 1: I agree with this comment. I do not know why the editor did not attach the images, which in this case, are an essential support to understand the text. In the new version, the images are already incorporated into the body of the text. I hope that now everything is better understood.
On the other hand, I agree that it would have been very interesting to have the planimetry (floor plans, elevations and sections, or even axonometric drawings) at the same scale for all these buildings in order to compare them with each other: but I do not have that information. It is a pity.
ADDITIONAL CLARIFICATIONS
I sincerely thank the reviewer for his careful reading of the article and his contributions to its improvement, as well as the interest shown in my research.
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
Notes about the form of the article
The different figures mentioned and cited are not inserted within the different sections of the manuscript. We do not include figure captions in a certain section of the manuscript. But figures should be included within the text in the different sections with their respective captions and citations. After the reviewer finished, the figure files were found in the Ithenticate similarity report and not in the manuscript itself.
Section 5 reads as “final thoughts”, however, in scientific manuscripts, it is advised to use correct precise terminology as per the terms in the a.m. paragraph.
Notes about the Content of the article
In accordance with the guidelines for authors in this journal, there should be several sections addressing materials, and methods, results, discussion, and conclusions. But the manuscript fails to include all these sections. Hence, in terms of form, it is more like book chapters.
The manuscript ought to have a hierarchy in the sections and subsections that reflects the logical research structure and line of thinking within the manuscript.
In scientific articles, we do not generally use the first person to maintain objectivity and formality. The first paragraph in page 2 of the manuscript from line 51 till line 57 should be modified accordingly. If necessary it should be addressed in a scientific manner such as the author(s) observed that,…
In section 2.1 of liturgical guidelines on Church architecture: There should be an image or drawing that shows the Filipino houses after the second paragraph.
The expression popular architecture is not very scientific, kindly revise. Perhaps you mean, vernacular or traditional. Kindly clarify.
Sections 2.2 till section 2.7 present the different case studies in the manuscript; Those case studies should be in sub-sections after a clear presentation for the methodological analytical framework that will provide consistency in presenting these cases, to reach the aim of the study after the discussion.
Also, a general note throughout the manuscript is the method of naming different places and projects; for instance, section 2.6 the designation” St. Mark’s Open Chapel” while the first line in the section reads as” chapel of San Marcos “, hence, is this the official name of the church the first or the second? or is the word “open” added as a descriptive opinion by the author? All cases should be documented in a way that determine the official established designation of the project with its location, so that data is retrievable and clearly understood by the readership, especially the international community not the local citizens only. Perhaps the thematic sub-title added in each of the case study titles (such as The Umbraculum and the Cross ), can be included in the body text not the title.
The aim should be clearly stated with its specific objectives from the abstract until evidence is provided in the results and conclusion that it was conceived through this research.
I think the article should clearly demonstrate that there are traditional enclosed church buildings in Philippines, while there are other open religious buildings and religious events such as the visit of HH the pope that require exceptional settings and contextual temporary structures, and that the scope of this article does not include the traditional church building ( enclosed structure), because the manuscript in its current form delivers the message that there is no traditional enclosed church Architecture in this country although that there is.
In section 1 line number 35 reads as ;”which is why churches are almost never completely 35 enclosed” and in section 5 in the last paragraph , among the final sentences of the manuscript one that reads as: (religious buildings are never totally enclosed). I believe that this is a generality that perhaps needs to be revisited. Perhaps specifying the exact scope of this article in the abstract and the method section can alleviate it.
Finally, this research is spotting an interesting phenomena in Philippines that is worth of studying, and the passion of the author(s) is really sensed, hence, it really requires to be well structured with a sturdy methodological framework and to illustrate the case studies in a consistent methodological analytical manner, which will directly serve to achieve the aim and objectives that are to be clarified. A clear results section should be added between the case studies and the conclusion.
I gently request that any modification is highlighted for the final review step to save time in the process.
Best of luck with your publication process.
Author Response
Comment 1: The different figures mentioned and cited are not inserted within the different sections of the manuscript.
Reply 1: I agree with this comment. I do not know why the editor did not attach the images, which in this case are an essential support to understand the text. In the new version, the images are already incorporated into the body of the text. I hope that everything is now better understood.
Comment 2: Section 5 reads as "final thoughts", however, in scientific manuscripts, it is advised to use correct precise terminology as per the terms in the a.m. paragraph.
Reply 2: Indeed, the title of the (old) section 5 was not too academic, and has been changed to Conclusions.
Comment 3: In accordance with the guidelines for authors in this journal, there should be several sections addressing materials, and methods, results, discussion, and conclusions.
Answer 3: To adjust it more strictly to the journal's standards, the title of the initial sections (Objective and Method) has been modified, and a new section (6) has been incorporated before the Conclusions called 'Results', where the contributions that have appeared throughout the text are collected and discussed.
Comment 4: In scientific articles, we do not generally use the first person to maintain objectivity and formality. The first paragraph in page 2 of the manuscript from line 51 till line 57 should be modified accordingly.
Answer 4: Agreed. The focus of the paragraph heard has been changed, and it has been written in the third person.
Comment 5: The expression popular architecture is not very scientific, kindly revise. Perhaps you mean, vernacular or traditional.
Answer 5: OK. The expression 'popular architecture' has been changed to 'vernacular architecture'.
Comment 6: Sections 2.2 till section 2.7 present the different case studies in the manuscript; Those case studies should be in sub-sections after a clear presentation for the methodological analytical framework that will provide consistency in presenting these cases, to reach the aim of the study after the discussion.
Reply 6: Personally, I consider the article to be well organized in two parts: the response of religious architecture to climate, on the one hand; and the topic of major ecclesial events, on the other hand. Within each section, the particular cases are subdivided.
Comment 7: Also, a general note throughout the manuscript is the method of naming different places and projects.
Reply 7: I tried to stick as closely as possible to the official name of each of the buildings, especially in the heading of each section (from which the subheadings have been removed). Sometimes, the small variations only try to make the text more readable, avoiding heavy repetitions.
Comment 8: ...the manuscript in its current form delivers the message that there is no traditional enclosed church Architecture in this country although that there is.
Reply 8: Indeed, there are many closed churches in the Philippines, although the climatic factor is so strong that there must always be air currents available. And these air currents end up, in many cases, formalizing a very specific type of architecture. In any case, a sentence has been added (lines 562-565) that attempts to clarify this idea.
Comment 9: A clear results section should be added between the case studies and the conclusion.
Reply 9: As already stated, a new section has been added before the Conclusions called ‘Results’, where the contributions that have appeared throughout the text are collected and discussed.
ADDITIONAL CLARIFICATIONS
I sincerely thank the reviewer for his careful reading of the article and his contributions to its improvement, as well as the interest shown in my research.
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
Dear Editor,
Hello. Unfortunately, the amendments and points that I had sent to the authors in the previous review were not taken into account in the new revision, and the authors have stated that they do not accept my opinion, and the article has been resubmitted in the same form. In the previous review, points were sent to the authors regarding the research background (the difference between your work and past work...) and the research method of the article, as well as the title of the article. The authors believe that these three sections do not need to be changed and have not implemented my suggestions. Therefore, I suggest that I be exempted from re-evaluating the article and that another reviewer be appointed. Perhaps my opinions are not accurate! Based on this, in my view, the article still needs fundamental changes and is not approved by me. Wishing success to the respected authors.
Best regards.
Author Response
I sincerely thank the reviewer for his careful work and thoughtful observations, even though, as is evident, I do not fully agree with all of them.
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
I would like to thank the author for addressing almost all the comments successfully.
However, I still see that a materials and methods section is a necessity in the manuscript. Also, by the end of the manuscript, we can find phrases that imply a generality denying that there are enclosed churches as well in Filipino, such as “religious buildings are never totally enclosed”. It is advised to rephrase the sentences more accurately in a similar way to the full explanation presented in the results section after it was modified.
The final note is that there is no section with a title: objective and method as per the reply within the notes, perhaps it is in another version of the document.
Comment 3: In accordance with the guidelines for authors in this journal, there should be several sections addressing materials, and methods, results, discussion, and conclusions.
Answer 3: To adjust it more strictly to the journal's standards, the title of the initial sections (Objective and Method) has been modified, and a new section (6) has been incorporated before the Conclusions called 'Results', where the contributions that have appeared throughout the text are collected and discussed.
Hope you can check this before publication.
Thank you
Best of luck.
Author Response
Once again, I thank the reviewer for the accuracy of his observations.
Regarding the section 'Materials and objectives', it had already been included in the previous revision, but for some reason, it did not appear in the version that is uploaded to the web... Sorry. Now I am incorporating it again, marked in red color. I trust it will be enough.
Regarding the last paragraph of the conclusions, I have reworded it to make its meaning even more precise, avoiding risky generalizations. It is also marked in red.
Undoubtedly, I think the text has improved with these revisions.
Best regards.
