آی اس آی ژورنال

I have now received comments from the two referees on your paper.

The first referee says:

A good paper but it needs some rethinking. What is needs is

1. Bringing in alternative readings of the clash of civilizations - sardar, nandy, said, for example.

2. With each of his propositions, some real life case studies are required with examples ...Right now it is overly theory based.

3. More citation in the field - the author starts this with Masini but needs to do more. The futures studies present is all elementary stuff and will be too familiar with Futures readers.

4. Finally, some understanding of differing views of conflict and states would help - reading through Galtung's work on conflict and peace would be of great benefit. With a broader reading - points 1-4 - the piece could be published.

The second referee says:

Can the authors give some examples of futures work in Iran. As it is now, his piece seems inappropriate for the readers of Futures who already know what they are writing about. As it is, the paper is probably more useful to readers in Iran, as an intro to futures elsewhere, than to futures folk elsewhere. What would make the piece of value in Futures would be showing how Iran is (or is not) manifesting these principles in its planning and policies. I think the authors need to do this. It of course needs English editing. The authors should get someone with good English to polish their paper.

In view of these comments, I think serious revisions are needed in paper. In particular, the emphasis should be on futures studies in Iran, with examples, rather than on presenting an elementary view of what futures studies is. You also need to take other comments by the referees into consideration in revising your paper. I will accept a revised version for publication. If you consider all the suggestions of the referees than there should be no need to have the paper refereed again.

Please let me have the revised paper as soon as it is ready.

Best,

Zia Sardar, Editor,

Futures