The Re-Discovery of the Bulletin of Chinese Studies and the Development of Traditional Chinese Studies at Christian Universities in Huaxiba

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Using the example of the historical events described in detail, the author tackles an interesting and important issue concerning the challenges of the clash (encounter) of different cultures, above all in the context of education and science, and how to solve it. The issue addressed has been properly justified and set in a clearly defined historical framework. The article does not limit itself to the presentation of the historical course of the phenomenon under study, but also deepens it from the content side, pointing out the importance of the formation of an open identity.  Substantively and formally, the article is well conceived. Its structure is logical and properly justified. The presentation of the content is very careful and consistently pursues the aim of the article. The article seems to be based on a sufficient bibliographic base, as the opinions and judgements formulated are well documented. Due to the subject matter and the way it is presented, the article deserves to be published.

Author Response

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. 

We have tried our best to improve the article in the revised draft. 

We appreciate that you can review it once more in your busy schedule. Thanks again! 

 

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper purports to be a re-discovery of Bulletin of Chinese Studies but it is mostly a rehash of debates about guoxue. You might consider clarifying the relationship between the guoxue debates and the Bulletin. The Bulletin discussion in your paper is not the main discussion. This paper is mostly about guoxue. The Bulletin and the relationship to Yenching University would be pretty important since American area studies began at this moment in the 1930s. But you completely ignore this. Maybe it's because you are lumping the "West" into one big category, whereas Yenching was linked to Harvard, an American institution. The West is not a country.  

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The English is OK. But the paper still needs some major editing. 

Author Response

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. We have made great efforts to improve the article in the revised draft and provided the following explanations:

1. According to your valuable review, in the revised manuscript, it is important to differentiate American prospective from the whole "Western" one. We have added details such as the candidate for the president of the Harvard-Yenching Institute and its impact on Yenching University, analyzing the influence of Harvard University and the Bulletin of Chinese Studies upon the church Universities at Huaxiba and the Harvard-Yenching Institute. The focal point of the article is also centered on the diverse approaches to studying Chinese traditional culture as reflected in the Bulletin of Chinese Studies.

2. The article focuses on analyzing the academic interests of various scholars, with frequent references to the ideas of intellectuals in the related literature. In fact, during the writing process, the author has systematically reviewed the archives of the Harvard-Yenching Institute and those church universities, held by the United Board for Christian Higher Education in Asia (UBCHEA). Initially unfamiliar with the notation methods for archives, the author intends to improve them during the revision of the annotations. In this revised manuscript, all archival sources are now meticulously cited.

3.  The language style of the article has been further refined.  

   We really appreciate that you can review the article once more in your busy schedule. Thanks again!

    

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

See attachment

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript! 

We have made efforts to improve in the revised draft and the explanations will be as follows:

1. This article focuses on analyzing the academic interests of various scholars, with frequent references to the ideas of intellectuals in the related literature. In fact, during the writing process, the author has systematically reviewed the archives of the Harvard-Yenching Institute and those church universities, held by the United Board for Christian Higher Education in Asia (UBCHEA). Initially unfamiliar with the notation methods for archives, the author intends to improve them during the revision of the annotations. In this revised manuscript, all archival sources are now meticulously cited.

2. The third part of the article aims to sort out the academic positions and research paths of different scholar groups of those Church Universities at Huaxiba during the Anti-Japanese War period. The similarities and differences in their study of Chinese culture will be analyzed, trying to showcase the characteristics of their studies of Guoxue in the Bulletin of Chinese Studies, which are neither identical to traditional scholars nor strictly adherent to the "Sinology" advocated by the the Harvard-Yenching Institute. The revised manuscript has made improvements in terms of original documents, historical facts, and analysis.

3. The language style of the article has been further refined. 

We really appreciate that you can review it once more in your busy schedule.

Thanks again! 

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thanks for the changes and the response to my comments. I can see the improvements: your paper reads much better now. Still, I have two observations to make: 

(1) the more I read your paper, the more I become convinced that this is not a story of the Bulletin of Chinese Studies (BCS), but of Guoxue through the lens of the BCS. If so, the structure of the paper needs to be changed accordingly. 

(2) the new content needs editorial revision. For example: 

-- 1941 .Sinology

-- 1939."Opinions

-- 1942.To Liu

Thanks 

Author Response

[General Comment] The more I read your paper, the more I become convinced that this is not a story of the Bulletin of Chinese Studies (BCS), but of Guoxue through the lens of the BCS. If so, the structure of the paper needs to be changed accordingly.

Response: Thank you very much for the valuable revision suggestions. It was your valuable and insightful comments that led to possible improvements in the current version. Here is an explanation: While previous studies have been mostly focused on introducing the content of the Bulletin of Chinese Studies, this article specifically concentrates on the academic evolution during the late Qing Dynasty and the Republican era, particularly the intersection of Christian universities and the study of Chinese history and culture. It explores the origins of the journal, the academic interests and research methods of the main contributors of the journal, and how this reflects the diverse approaches to Guoxue research before and after the War of Resistance against Japanese Aggression. It highlights the historical and contemporary value of the academic ideals and methods of the scholarly community represented in this journal. Some Adjustments and additions, highlighted in red this time, have been made in the revised draft.

[Minor Comment ] the new content needs editorial revision.

Response: Thanks for your kind reminders. Efforts have been made to improve the style and format in the revised manuscript. The modifications in the manuscript have been highlighted in red this time.