REVIEWER 2 - CRITICAL REVIEW
================================================================================

**Review of "NUMBERS DON'T SPEAK, PEOPLE DO": TRUSTWORTHINESS IN HUMANITARIAN CASUALTY REPORTING DURING THE GAZA WAR (2024–2025)**

**1. Overall Impression**
My immediate reaction is one of methodological skepticism and substantive concern. While the topic is critically important, the execution raises fundamental questions about research rigor and objectivity. The paper presents as a mixed-methods study but demonstrates significant weaknesses in both quantitative and qualitative components. The framing appears politically charged rather than scientifically neutral, with the dataset title "Genocide of the Palestinian People" suggesting predetermined conclusions rather than open inquiry. The abstract's claim of "analytic rigor" is not fully substantiated by the methodological description.

*First impression strengths:* Addresses timely humanitarian issue, attempts methodological triangulation, acknowledges limitations.
*First impression concerns:* Questionable objectivity, dataset limitations, potential confirmation bias, overclaims about contributions.

**2. Technical & Scientific Assessment**

**A. Problem Definition: 2/5**
- Research questions are clearly stated but framed within a predetermined political narrative
- Motivation relies heavily on the assumption that "genocide" is occurring rather than treating this as an empirical question
- Insufficient critical engagement with potential biases in data collection and reporting

**B. Methodological Soundness: 2/5**
- Quantitative analysis is purely descriptive despite claims of rigor
- Dataset lacks temporal data (dates), severely limiting analytical value
- Qualitative sampling (N=22) is small and potentially unrepresentative
- No discussion of potential selection bias in dataset compilation
- Missing essential methodological details about data collection protocols

**C. Results & Evidence: 1/5**
- Quantitative findings (32.8% children, 60% male) are presented without proper context or comparison to population demographics
- No statistical testing or confidence intervals despite claims of "range-plus-change-log" standards
- Qualitative themes appear predetermined rather than emergent from data
- No evidence of hypothesis testing or falsification attempts

**D. Contribution to the Field: 2/5**
- Proposed "two-path triangulation model" lacks novelty and operational detail
- "Range-plus-change-log" concept is underdeveloped and untested
- Integration of narratives with statistics is already established in humanitarian research

**E. Writing & Presentation: 3/5**
- Generally well-structured but repetitive in findings presentation
- Tables are clear but lack sophistication
- Excessive self-citation and methodological justification

**F. Ethical & Transparency Standards: 2/5**
- IRB approval mentioned but details lacking
- Dataset availability is positive but source credibility questionable
- Political framing raises concerns about research neutrality
- No discussion of researcher positionality biases

**3. Strengths**
- Addresses important humanitarian documentation challenge
- Attempts methodological innovation through mixed methods
- Acknowledges study limitations
- Clear presentation of basic demographic patterns

**4. Weaknesses**

**Major Flaws:**
- Dataset lacks essential temporal dimension, severely limiting analytical utility
- Political framing compromises scientific objectivity from outset
- Qualitative sample size and representativeness inadequate for claims made
- No comparison to population demographics or conflict epidemiology literature
- Overstated claims of methodological innovation
- Insufficient critical examination of data source reliability

**Minor Flaws:**
- Repetitive presentation of findings
- Inconsistent citation format
- Vague descriptions of "distributed verification networks"
- Underdeveloped theoretical framework application

**5. Recommendations for Improvement**

**Required for Resubmission:**
1. Replace politically charged dataset with neutral sources or provide rigorous validation of current dataset
2. Conduct proper epidemiological analysis comparing casualty demographics to population structure
3. Substantially expand qualitative component with larger, more representative sample
4. Remove predetermined political framing and adopt neutral scientific stance
5. Include temporal analysis through alternative data sources
6. Provide detailed methodological protocols for data collection and verification

**Would Strengthen Paper:**
- Comparative analysis with other conflict casualty reporting systems
- Statistical modeling to account for potential biases
- Detailed case studies of verification processes
- Audience reception studies to test credibility claims

**6. Verdict**

**Overall Score: 1/5 - Strong Reject**

**Justification:** This paper suffers from fundamental flaws that cannot be addressed through minor revisions. The combination of politically predetermined framing, severe dataset limitations, inadequate qualitative sampling, and overstated contributions renders the research unsuited for publication in its current form. The methodological weaknesses are particularly concerning given the sensitive nature of the topic and the potential for misuse of findings. While the subject matter is important, the execution lacks the scientific rigor and objectivity required for Tier-1 publication. The authors would need to completely reconceptualize the study design, secure more robust data sources, and adopt a genuinely neutral scientific stance to produce publishable research on this topic.

---
**Reviewer 2 Style Enforcement:**
- Skeptical stance maintained throughout
- Burden of proof placed squarely on authors
- Methodological weaknesses highlighted without apology
- Political framing challenged as incompatible with scientific standards
- Claims of innovation subjected to rigorous scrutiny
- Ethical concerns about neutrality and objectivity raised explicitly