REVIEWER 1 - COMPREHENSIVE REVIEW
================================================================================

**Review of "THEY KEPTFILMING UNTIL THE END": TRUSTWORTHINESS IN JOURNALISTIC TESTIMONY DURING THE GAZA WAR (2023–2024)**

---

### **🔍 Step 1. Summary of the Paper**

This study examines journalist fatalities in Gaza from October 2023 to March 2024, analyzing 158 documented cases through a mixed-methods approach. The paper claims to investigate how trust in journalistic testimony is established under extreme conditions of conflict, communication blackouts, and infrastructural collapse. Quantitative analysis reveals patterns in demographics, causes of death, and temporal distribution, while qualitative thematic coding identifies themes such as courage, credibility, injustice, and hope in journalists' final communications. The authors argue that trust operates as "relational reciprocity," where journalists' risk-taking creates moral truth claims validated through audience witnessing, transforming individual sacrifice into collective moral testimony.

---

### **🔬 Step 2. Evaluation Criteria**

#### **1. Originality / Novelty**
- **Score: 7/10**  
- The paper addresses a timely and understudied phenomenon—journalist fatalities in the Gaza conflict—and integrates quantitative fatality data with qualitative testimony analysis, which is relatively novel in conflict journalism research. However, the theoretical frameworks (epistemic trust, moral witnessing) are well-established, and the application to this specific context, while relevant, is not entirely groundbreaking. The concept of "relational reciprocity" adds nuance but is not a paradigm shift.

#### **2. Scientific Rigor / Methodology**
- **Score: 6/10**  
- The mixed-methods design is appropriate, but several flaws undermine rigor:
  - **Sampling Bias:** The sample is limited to *fatalities*, excluding injured, detained, or surviving journalists, which skews the analysis of "trust" toward extreme cases.
  - **Causality Claims:** The paper implies that risk exposure directly causes trust, but no experimental or longitudinal data support this causal inference.
  - **Missing Controls:** No comparison with conflicts where journalist fatalities were lower (e.g., Ukraine) to contextualize findings.
  - **Ethical Oversight:** While data are anonymized, the source of sensitive testimonies (e.g., social media) and ethical approval processes are unclear.

#### **3. Clarity & Presentation**
- **Score: 8/10**  
- The paper is well-structured, with clear sections and logical flow. The abstract and conclusions accurately reflect the content. However:
  - **Jargon Overuse:** Terms like "epistemic trust" and "relational reciprocity" are repeated without sufficient layperson explanation.
  - **Table Readability:** Tables are informative but lack detailed captions (e.g., Table 2 does not clarify what "Local Media" entails).
  - **Overstated Claims:** The conclusion suggests "transformative" impacts without robust evidence.

#### **4. Reproducibility & Transparency**
- **Score: 5/10**  
- The methodology section describes data sources (e.g., CPJ, Al Jazeera) but lacks critical details:
  - **Data Availability:** No mention of public access to the "press_killed_in_gaza.csv" dataset or code for analysis.
  - **Coding Reliability:** While two researchers coded a subset, inter-coder reliability metrics (e.g., Cohen’s kappa) are unreported.
  - **Statistical Methods:** Descriptive statistics are basic, but no justification for omitting inferential tests (e.g., regression to link fatality patterns to trust).

#### **5. Significance & Impact**
- **Score: 8/10**  
- The topic is critically important, addressing journalist safety, media ethics, and humanitarian communication. The findings could inform:
  - **Policy:** International frameworks for journalist protection.
  - **Education:** Journalism curricula on risk and trust.
  - **Academic Discourse:** Conflict journalism and epistemic justice.
- However, the impact is tempered by methodological limitations and regional specificity.

#### **6. Ethics & Integrity**
- **Score: 7/10**  
- The authors acknowledge positionality and use triangulation to mitigate bias. However:
  - **Conflict of Interest:** No statement on funding or ideological affiliations, which is crucial given the politicized context.
  - **Sensitivity:** Using final communications of deceased journalists raises ethical questions about consent and family privacy, which are inadequately addressed.

---

### **🧪 Step 3. Specific Suggestions for Improvement**

#### **Major Flaws to Address:**
1. **Expand Sampling:** Include non-fatal journalists (e.g., injured, survivors) to avoid survivorship bias.
2. **Strengthen Causal Claims:** Use regression or comparative case studies to test whether risk exposure directly correlates with trust.
3. **Clarify Ethical Protocols:** Detail IRB approval, data anonymization, and consent procedures for using sensitive testimonies.
4. **Improve Reproducibility:** Share datasets, code, and full coding frameworks in supplementary materials.

#### **Minor Flaws:**
1. **Define Key Terms:** Add a glossary for terms like "relational reciprocity."
2. **Enhance Tables:** Include confidence intervals, p-values, or effect sizes where applicable.
3. **Reduce Repetition:** Consolidate theoretical discussions in Sections 2–3.

#### **Additional Analyses to Strengthen the Manuscript:**
1. **Comparative Analysis:** Contrast Gaza with other conflicts (e.g., Syria, Ukraine) to identify context-specific vs. universal trust mechanisms.
2. **Audience Study:** Incorporate survey/data on audience perceptions of journalist credibility to validate qualitative themes.
3. **Longitudinal Tracking:** Analyze how trust dynamics evolved monthly alongside conflict intensity.

---

### **📊 Step 4. Final Decision & Justification**

- **Overall Score: 6.5/10**  
- **Recommendation: Borderline**  
- **Justification:**  
  This paper addresses a high-stakes, under-researched topic with potential societal impact. The mixed-methods approach is commendable, and the integration of quantitative and qualitative findings provides nuanced insights. However, **methodological flaws**—including sampling bias, unsubstantiated causal claims, and insufficient reproducibility—undermine its scientific rigor. The politicized context also demands greater transparency about ethics and conflicts of interest.  
  - **Strengths:** Timeliness, theoretical integration, clear structure.  
  - **Weaknesses:** Limited generalizability, speculative conclusions, inadequate data sharing.  
  - **Path to Acceptance:** Major revisions addressing sampling, causality, and ethics could make this suitable for publication. Without these, the paper remains more descriptive than explanatory.

---

**Confidential Note to Editor:**  
This study’s political sensitivity necessitates careful scrutiny. While the authors strive for objectivity, the omission of explicit conflict-of-interest statements and reliance on partisan sources (e.g., Al Jazeera) without balancing perspectives (e.g., Israeli media) may introduce bias. Recommend additional review by experts in Middle Eastern studies or political communication.