Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Is it still possible to interview immigrants, not only Orthodox priests?

Could you please reformulate the hypotheses in order to avoid the impression that they include nothing which is not known?

Could you please try to reduce narratives and introduce real questions, critical remarks, etc. in the text?  

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

We modified the manuscript according to observations / remarks received. We accomplished the requirements. Please find below the answers to your observations.

Thank you for all the comments/ remarks you have made, and we hope you will agree with the publication of this article!

Despina Saghin and the co-authors

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This article looks at the role of the Romanian Orthodox Church in support Romanian immigrants to Italy.  I commend the authors for an outstanding review of the literature.  The research question is well situated in the general academic discourse on migration an acculturation.  I think the methods are appropriate to the research question and are well executed.  The results logically follow from the survey results.  

I have two minor concerns with the paper as it is currently written.  First, I think you could do a better job tying the results of your research back into academic literature on migration and acculturation.  I think the framework is there in the conclusion.  I would like to see how you think you advance the academic discourse with your research.  

Second, I would proofread the document before resubmission.  There are a few article errors throughout the paper and also some odd word choices.  For example, on line 74, you mention a "conceptual binomial."  I'm not sure what you mean by a conceptual binomial.  I would suggest you change this.  In addition, on line 210, you use the term "scientific diagnosis."  I'm not sure this is best term at that place.  Overall, the paper is well written.  There are just a few minor editorial concerns throughout the paper.  

Overall, the paper is well written and well researched.  Thank you for the opportunity to review the paper.  I really found it interesting and enlightening.  Best of luck in your future research.  

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Overall, the language is fine.  There are few minor editorial errors throughout the paper, mostly article use and word choices.  I mentioned a few in the comments to authors section.  I would suggest you proofread and edit before resubmitting the paper.  

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

We modified the manuscript according to observations / remarks received. We accomplished the requirements. Please find below the answers to your observations.

Thank you for all the comments/ remarks you have made, and we hope you will agree with the publication of this article!

Despina Saghin and the co-authors

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article “The Church, a Symbolic Resource in Preserving the Identity of Romanian Immigrants and an Important Agent of Integration into Italian Society" offers a compelling and timely exploration of the multifaceted role of the Romanian Orthodox Church (ROC) in Italy, particularly its impact on the acculturation and integration of Romanian immigrants. The research highlights how the ROC transcends a spiritual function to become a social and cultural anchor for the diaspora. The qualitative methodology, based on interviews with Romanian Orthodox priests, provides insights into the practical support and community-building efforts undertaken by the church. The emphasis on the church as a source of social ties, civic participation, and a guardian of Romanian cultural heritage demonstrates potential in contributing to the literature on religion, migration, and integration. The identified hypotheses, particularly regarding the ROC's role in reducing acculturation stress, facilitating integration, and consolidating national identity, are clearly stated and discussed with supporting empirical evidence from the interviews.

While the article presents valuable findings, there are several areas where it could be generally improved. Firstly, the literature review, while comprehensive in its scope of general migration and religion studies, could be more critically engaged with the specific nuances of Orthodox Christianity in diaspora contexts, especially in relation to other religious institutions. Expanding on the theoretical framework to explicitly incorporate concepts of transnationalism beyond its brief mention would also strengthen the analysis, particularly given the strong ties the ROC maintains with Romania. 

 

Secondly, the reliance solely on interviews with priests, while providing a unique perspective, presents a potential limitation. Including the voices of Romanian immigrants themselves, either through interviews or surveys, would offer a more holistic and direct understanding of their experiences and perceptions of the church's role. This would provide a richer, multi-vocal account of how the church impacts their integration and identity and scope for a follow up study/ future research. Lastly, while the results are presented clearly, incorporating a more robust discussion of the challenges or limitations faced by the ROC in its integration efforts could enhance the paper's critical depth. For example, are there instances where the church's emphasis on preserving Romanian identity might inadvertently hinder broader integration into Italian society?

A crucial area where this work must critically engage is with existing scholarship on similar religious institutions in migrant contexts. Specifically, the article would benefit immensely from a direct and thorough engagement with the following key articles:

Mullins, M. (1987). "The Life-Cycle of Ethnic Churches in Sociological Perspective." Japanese Journal of Religious Studies 14 (1): 321–334. This foundational piece on the "life-cycle" of ethnic churches provides a sociological framework that is highly pertinent to the study. Mullins's concept of how ethnic churches evolve over time, from initial immigrant support to potential assimilation or transformation, offers a strong theoretical base. It would be beneficial to explicitly discuss how the Romanian Orthodox Church in Italy fits (or diverges from) this "life-cycle" model. Does the ROC exhibit stages of development similar to those described by Mullins, particularly in terms of maintaining ethnic identity versus facilitating integration into the host society?

Emmerich, Arndt (2023). "Language change and persistence within Turkish mosques in Germany – Transnational ties and domestic demands," Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 49:11, 2779-2798. This article offers a direct comparative lens by examining how Turkish mosques in Germany navigate language preservation and change. Given the significant focus on language (Romanian and Italian) in the present paper, Emmerich's findings on the complex negotiations between host country and heritage languages, the role of transnational ties, and the impact of generational change in Turkish mosques would provide a valuable framework for comparison and contrast. Are there parallels in how the ROC addresses language use in services, cultural events, or children's programs, and what might account for any differences?

 

By critically engaging with these works, the article can significantly strengthen its theoretical grounding, provide valuable comparative insights, and contribute more broadly to the understanding of religious institutions in the context of migration and integration.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

We modified the manuscript according to observations / remarks received. We accomplished the requirements. Please find below the answers to your observations.

Thank you for all the comments/ remarks you have made, and we hope you will agree with the publication of this article!

Despina Saghin and the co-authors

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This manuscript addresses a timely and important issueб the role of the Romanian Orthodox Church in Italy in reducing acculturation stress, supporting integration, and preserving identity among Romanian immigrants. The Results section is informative and presents interesting qualitative insights from interviews with priests.

However, other sections of the paper require significant improvement. The Introduction is largely descriptive and does not clearly articulate the aim of the study, the theoretical gaps it seeks to address, or its main contributions.

Although the purpose is mentioned in the abstract, it is missing from the main body.

The literature review is insufficient and should be expanded, for example, by incorporating Cultural Stress Theory (Seth Schwartz), which is highly relevant to the topic.

The formulation of hypotheses is unusual for a qualitative study based on semi-structured interviews; it would be more appropriate to frame research questions instead.

The Discussion section is underdeveloped and does not highlight the novelty or theoretical contribution of the study.

Additionally, the caption of Figure 1 is unclear and should be revised into proper English.

In sum, while the paper deals with an important subject and contains valuable empirical material, it requires substantial revisions in order to clarify its purpose, strengthen its theoretical grounding, and improve its contribution to the literature.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

We modified the manuscript according to observations / remarks received. We accomplished the requirements. Please find below the answers to your observations.

Thank you for all the comments/ remarks you have made, and we hope you will agree with the publication of this article!

Despina Saghin and the co-authors

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have taken my suggestions into account and improved the manuscript substantially.

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

In my opinion, the authors addressed all my comments and revised the paper accordingly. I have no further comments.