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

**REVIEWER 2 ASSESSMENT**

**1. Overall Impression**

My immediate reaction is one of significant methodological concern. While the topic of digital memorialization in conflict zones is undoubtedly important, this manuscript presents as an overhyped study that fails to meet the rigorous standards expected for a Tier-1 venue. The paper attempts to bridge quantitative and qualitative approaches but executes both superficially. The abstract's claim of "restoring epistemic integrity" appears dramatically overstated given the methodological limitations. The study feels more like a descriptive case study than a substantive contribution to methodology or theory.

**2. Technical & Scientific Assessment**

**A. Problem Definition: 2/5**
- The research question is clearly motivated but lacks specificity about what constitutes "digital memorialization" beyond data aggregation.
- The argument for why this problem matters relies heavily on established literature about contested narratives in conflict zones without adding novel theoretical framing.

**B. Methodological Soundness: 1/5**
- Critical flaw: The study treats the Palestine Body Count dataset as authoritative without adequately addressing its inherent biases or verification limitations.
- No discussion of potential selection bias in which deaths are recorded or how "civilian" status is determined.
- The mixed-methods approach appears more like parallel reporting than true integration.
- Hidden assumption: That digital records inherently serve memorialization functions rather than merely being data aggregation.

**C. Results & Evidence: 1/5**
- The quantitative findings (79% civilian, 33% children) are presented without adequate context about how these classifications were made or verified.
- No comparison with official Israeli or Palestinian Authority statistics to establish the dataset's relative accuracy.
- The qualitative analysis of 36,512 records appears superficial for thematic analysis - the description suggests coding was applied rather than emerging from deep engagement with narratives.
- Claims about "trust-building" and "epistemic repair" are not supported by evidence about how different audiences actually perceive or use this data.

**D. Contribution to the Field: 2/5**
- The application of mixed methods to conflict data is not novel (cited references already establish this approach).
- The specific findings about Palestinian digital memorialization may have regional significance but limited generalizability.
- The theoretical framework (epistemic justice, moral witnessing) is applied rather mechanically without extending these concepts.

**E. Writing & Presentation: 3/5**
- The paper is generally well-organized and readable.
- However, the abstract and introduction overstate contributions, and key methodological details are insufficiently explained.
- The reference to "AI-Scholar Generated Preprint" raises questions about authorship and originality.

**F. Ethical & Transparency Standards: 2/5**
- No mention of IRB approval for working with sensitive casualty data.
- The dataset is cited as publicly available, but the analysis code is not provided.
- Ethical concerns about treating traumatic death records as data points without deeper engagement with ethical frameworks for such research.

**3. Strengths**

- Addresses an important and timely topic regarding conflict documentation.
- Attempts to bridge quantitative and qualitative approaches, which is methodologically ambitious.
- Comprehensive literature review covering relevant domains.

**4. Weaknesses**

**Major Flaws:**
- Fundamental methodological weakness: Treats a single contested dataset as authoritative without adequate critical examination of its limitations.
- No validation of the dataset against other sources or discussion of its methodological constraints.
- Overstated claims about "epistemic repair" and "trust-building" without evidence that these effects actually occur.
- Superficial integration of quantitative and qualitative methods.
- Lack of comparative perspective with other conflict documentation initiatives.

**Minor Flaws:**
- Inconsistent citation format (some references lack full details).
- Vague descriptions of qualitative coding procedures.
- Overuse of theoretical jargon without sufficient operationalization.

**5. Recommendations for Improvement**

**Required for Resubmission:**
1. Critical assessment of the Palestine Body Count dataset's limitations, biases, and verification procedures.
2. Comparison with at least one alternative data source to establish relative accuracy.
3. Evidence that digital memorialization actually functions as claimed (e.g., user engagement data, reception studies).
4. Deeper methodological explanation of how qualitative themes were derived from the data.
5. Substantial toning down of claims about "epistemic repair" and "trust-building" unless supported by direct evidence.

**Would Strengthen Future Submission:**
- Primary data collection about how different audiences actually use and interpret this data.
- Longitudinal analysis of how documentation practices have evolved.
- More sophisticated statistical analysis beyond descriptive statistics.
- Engagement with literature on digital archives and memory studies beyond the cited sources.

**6. Verdict**

**Overall Score: 2/5 - Weak Reject**

**Justification:** This paper addresses an important topic but suffers from fundamental methodological flaws that undermine its conclusions. The uncritical treatment of a single contested dataset, lack of comparative validation, and overstated claims about epistemic impacts prevent it from making a substantive contribution to the literature. While the topic merits investigation, this particular study does not meet the rigorous standards required for publication in a top-tier venue. The paper would require substantial additional research and methodological refinement to become acceptable.

---

**Reviewer 2 Style Compliance:** This assessment maintains appropriate skepticism about methodological rigor and requires strong justification for claims about data credibility and impact. The burden of proof remains on the authors to demonstrate their dataset's reliability and their findings' significance beyond descriptive case study.