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

**Overall Assessment: Weak Reject (2/5)**

**1. Overall Impression**  
This manuscript presents an ambitious theoretical framework applied to a politically sensitive context, but suffers from significant methodological and conceptual flaws that undermine its scholarly contribution. While the topic is timely and the integration of epistemic injustice theory with conflict documentation is potentially valuable, the execution lacks the rigor expected for a Tier-1 publication. The paper feels more like a theoretical exercise with empirical embellishment than a substantive mixed-methods study. Major concerns include inadequate methodological transparency, questionable analytical depth, and overinterpretation of limited evidence.

**2. Technical & Scientific Assessment**  

**A. Problem Definition (3/5)**  
- *Strengths*: Clearly situates the research within epistemic injustice and moral witnessing literature.  
- *Weaknesses*: Fails to establish why 2004–2023 is a meaningful timeframe or how this study advances beyond existing scholarship on conflict documentation. The political motivation overshadows scientific novelty.

**B. Methodological Soundness (1/5)**  
- *Critical Flaws*:  
  - No details on statistical tests beyond "correlation analysis" – effect sizes, confidence intervals, and significance testing are absent.  
  - Qualitative analysis of 120 texts lacks justification for sample size or selection criteria.  
  - "Methodological triangulation" is claimed but not demonstrated – quantitative and qualitative analyses run parallel without meaningful integration.  
  - No discussion of dataset limitations (e.g., reporting biases, missing data).

**C. Results & Evidence (2/5)**  
- *Major Issues*:  
  - Tables present descriptive statistics but no inferential analysis to support claims of "systematic patterns."  
  - Qualitative themes ("institutional deafness," "data as mourning") are plausible but inadequately supported by evidence – only 2-3 anonymous quotes provided for each theme.  
  - No comparison with alternative explanations or countervailing evidence.  
  - Claims of "epistemic resistance" are asserted rather than demonstrated through empirical analysis.

**D. Contribution to the Field (2/5)**  
- The application of epistemic injustice to humanitarian data is conceptually interesting but lacks empirical novelty.  
- Findings largely confirm existing knowledge about asymmetric documentation in conflict zones.  
- Unlikely to be widely cited beyond niche audiences due to methodological limitations.

**E. Writing & Presentation (3/5)**  
- Well-structured but overly theoretical – the 20-page length belies thin empirical content.  
- Figures and tables are descriptive rather than analytical.  
- Overuse of jargon ("epistemic trust," "structural silencing") without operational clarity.

**F. Ethical & Transparency Standards (1/5)**  
- *Critical Omissions*:  
  - No IRB approval mentioned for analysis of sensitive human rights data.  
  - No data/code availability statement – contradicts claims of "verification mechanisms."  
  - Potential confirmation bias in interpreting data through explicitly political theoretical lenses.

**3. Strengths**  
- Novel theoretical integration of epistemic injustice with conflict documentation.  
- Comprehensive dataset (9,473 records) with temporal breadth.  
- Important topic with humanitarian relevance.

**4. Weaknesses**  
*Major Flaws*:  
- Inadequate statistical analysis – no modeling, hypothesis testing, or spatial analysis despite claims.  
- Qualitative analysis lacks rigor: no inter-coder reliability, codebook, or thick description.  
- Overstated conclusions unsupported by evidence (e.g., "digital mourning," "epistemic resistance").  
- Failure to address positionality and potential advocacy bias.

*Minor Flaws*:  
- Inconsistent citation style (e.g., "Dotson (2011; 2012)").  
- Vague methodological descriptions (e.g., "standard software packages").  
- Tables missing essential context (e.g., total Ns, time periods for correlations).

**5. Recommendations for Improvement**  
*Required for Resubmission*:  
1. Conduct proper statistical analysis: spatial regression, time-series modeling, and robustness checks.  
2. Deepen qualitative analysis: double sample size, provide intercoder reliability metrics, and include direct quotes from multiple sources.  
3. Demonstrate triangulation: show exactly how quantitative and qualitative findings inform each other.  
4. Address ethical rigor: obtain IRB approval, publish data/code, and discuss researcher positionality.  
5. Temper theoretical claims with empirical limitations.

*Aspirational Improvements*:  
- Compare documentation practices across different institutional actors.  
- Incorporate inter-rater reliability for qualitative coding.  
- Add counterfactual analysis or comparison cases.

**6. Verdict: Weak Reject (2/5)**  
This paper raises important questions about epistemic justice in conflict documentation but fails to meet the methodological standards required for a Tier-1 publication. The current evidence does not substantiate its theoretical claims, and the analysis lacks the rigor needed to support its political conclusions. While the topic merits study, this submission requires substantial additional empirical work and methodological transparency before it could be considered for publication. The authors should either conduct proper mixed-methods analysis or reframe this as a theoretical contribution with more modest empirical illustrations.

**Justification**: The methodological flaws are too fundamental to support the paper's claims, and the political nature of the topic demands especially rigorous evidence. Without significant additional analysis and transparency, the work remains an interesting but unsubstantiated argument rather than a scientific contribution.