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

**Review of "FROM WITNESS TO WORLD: HOW GLOBAL PROTEST SOLIDARITY CONSTRUCTS CREDIBILITY IN THE ISRAEL-PALESTINE WAR"**

---

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

This manuscript examines how global protest movements construct credibility and moral authority in the context of the Israel-Palestine conflict (2017-2024). Using a mixed-methods approach, the authors analyze 26 protest events from the Global Protest Tracker dataset, combining quantitative analysis of temporal patterns, protest sizes, and government responses with qualitative thematic coding of protest frames. The paper claims to demonstrate that credibility emerges through witness testimony, statistical evidence of casualties, and embodied protest practices, with larger protests facing violent government responses achieving heightened visibility that amplifies their credibility claims. The authors position this as contributing to understanding epistemic trust construction in contentious political contexts.

---

### **🔬 Step 2. Evaluation Criteria**

#### **1. Originality / Novelty**
**Score: 6/10**

The application of epistemic trust frameworks (Fricker, Habermas) to protest movements in this specific conflict context represents a modest theoretical contribution. However, the core concept of how protests construct credibility through various forms of evidence is well-established in social movement literature. The mixed-methods approach to protest event analysis, while competently executed, follows established methodological traditions rather than breaking new ground. The finding that larger protests face more violent responses and achieve greater visibility is consistent with existing protest repression literature.

#### **2. Scientific Rigor / Methodology**
**Score: 4/10**

**Major Concerns:**
- **Sample Size:** n=26 events over 7 years is insufficient for robust statistical analysis, especially given the global scope claimed.
- **Sampling Bias:** Reliance on the Global Protest Tracker dataset without discussion of its completeness, verification procedures, or media bias corrections raises serious validity concerns.
- **Stance Coding:** The rule-based classification of protests as "pro-Palestinian" (73% of sample) appears overly simplistic and potentially biased. No inter-coder reliability measures are reported.
- **Missing Controls:** No discussion of counter-protests or pro-Israeli solidarity events beyond the minimal "Domestic-Israel" category (n=2).
- **Statistical Limitations:** Correlation analysis with such a small sample and multiple binary variables produces unstable results (note the NaN values in correlation matrix).

#### **3. Clarity & Presentation**
**Score: 7/10**

The paper is generally well-structured and clearly written, with appropriate theoretical framing. However:
- Tables are poorly formatted and difficult to interpret (e.g., Table 5 correlation matrix with NaN values).
- The abstract overstates findings given methodological limitations.
- Some key terms ("credibility rituals," "epistemic performances") are used without sufficient operational definition.

#### **4. Reproducibility & Transparency**
**Score: 3/10**

**Critical Deficiencies:**
- No data/code availability statement.
- Insufficient detail on text analysis procedures for stance coding.
- Kaggle dataset referenced but no specific version or access information provided.
- Qualitative coding procedures described only at high level without codebook or example coding decisions.

#### **5. Significance & Impact**
**Score: 5/10**

The topic is undoubtedly important and timely. However, the methodological limitations severely constrain the potential impact. The findings are too tentative and context-specific to offer field-changing insights. The predominance of pro-Palestinian protests in the sample may reflect dataset limitations rather than actual protest landscapes, limiting generalizability.

#### **6. Ethics & Integrity**
**Score: 6/10**

While the use of public data avoids direct ethical concerns, the stance coding approach raises questions about interpretive bias. The paper would benefit from more explicit discussion of researcher positionality and potential conflicts in interpreting contentious political material. No funding sources or conflicts of interest are declared.

---

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

#### **Major Revisions Required:**

1. **Expand Dataset:** Either substantially increase the sample size or clearly acknowledge the exploratory nature of this small-n study. Consider supplementing with additional data sources.

2. **Methodological Transparency:** Provide complete details on stance coding procedures, including example coding decisions and reliability measures. Address dataset limitations and potential biases explicitly.

3. **Statistical Reanalysis:** With current sample size, focus on descriptive statistics and qualitative insights rather than unstable correlations. Remove or substantially qualify the correlation analysis.

4. **Balance Analysis:** Address the apparent imbalance in protest stances by either justifying the sampling approach or expanding coverage of diverse perspectives.

#### **Minor Revisions:**

1. Improve table formatting and readability.
2. Provide operational definitions for key theoretical constructs.
3. Strengthen the limitations section to more directly address methodological constraints.
4. Clarify the temporal coverage - the paper mentions 2017-2024 but data appears sparse in early years.

#### **Additional Analyses to Consider:**

1. Comparative analysis with other conflict-related protest movements to establish specificity of findings.
2. More nuanced coding of protest stances beyond the three categories used.
3. Analysis of how digital media coverage varies across protest types and sizes.

---

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

**Overall Score: 5/10**

**Recommendation: REJECT**

**Justification:**

While the topic is important and the theoretical framework shows promise, the manuscript suffers from fatal methodological flaws that cannot be addressed through minor revisions. The combination of extremely small sample size (n=26), questionable stance coding procedures, and reliance on a single dataset with unverified completeness fundamentally undermines the validity of the findings. The statistical analyses presented are inappropriate for the sample size and data characteristics.

The paper would require complete re-conceptualization with a substantially expanded dataset, more rigorous coding procedures, and appropriate statistical approaches to merit publication in a high-impact journal. The current version represents a preliminary exploration rather than a conclusive study.

The authors have identified an important research question and developed a reasonable theoretical approach, but the execution does not meet the standards of rigor required for publication in the venues referenced (Nature/BMI/CVPR level). I encourage the authors to substantially expand their data collection and methodological rigor before resubmitting elsewhere.

---

**Reviewer Confidence: High**  
*I have expertise in social movement research, mixed methods, and political communication.*