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

**Reviewer 02 Assessment**

**1. Overall Impression**
My immediate reaction is one of significant methodological and conceptual concern. The manuscript presents an ambitious mixed-methods study on a highly relevant and sensitive topic. However, it reads more as an advocacy piece framed in academic language than a rigorous, impartial scientific investigation. The theoretical framing around "epistemic injustice" and "moral witnessing" appears to predetermine the conclusions, creating a strong confirmation bias throughout the analysis. The study feels overhyped, with claims of "ethical infrastructure" and "epistemic resistance" far outstripping the evidence provided. The core weakness is the failure to treat the ACLED dataset as a variable construct to be critically evaluated, instead treating it as a neutral ground truth from which to analyze "trust construction."

**2. Technical & Scientific Assessment**

**A. Problem Definition: 2/5**
*   The research questions are clearly stated but are fundamentally biased. Questions like "How does institutional framing shape moral authority..." assume the conclusion that institutional framing *does* shape moral authority in a particular way. The problem is framed entirely from a single theoretical perspective (decolonial/epistemic injustice), ignoring alternative explanations for patterns in the data. The motivation is politically charged rather than scientifically neutral.

**B. Methodological Soundness: 1/5**
*   **Fatal Flaw in Causal Logic:** The study claims to investigate "how trust and credibility are constructed" but uses the ACLED data *as its primary source*. This is circular reasoning. It assumes the data is credible to analyze how credibility is constructed. A sound methodology would require independent verification of events or a comparative analysis with other datasets (e.g., UN OCHA, B'Tselem, IDF data) to actually assess credibility.
*   **Statistical Overreach:** The "estimation" of civilian age distribution (Table 5) is methodologically indefensible. The paper cites "established methodological frameworks" but provides no detail on the estimation model, its assumptions, or validation. Deriving a precise percentage (42%) from qualitative narrative fields is statistically dubious and highly misleading.
*   **Qualitative Analysis as Quantification:** The "qualitative" analysis is largely reduced to keyword counting (Table 6). This misses the entire point of qualitative inquiry, which is to understand meaning, context, and nuance. The rich, interpretive potential of narrative analysis is lost in a simplistic frequency count that is then used to make sweeping claims about "humanitarian framing."

**C. Results & Evidence: 1/5**
*   **Lack of Baselines and Controls:** The paper presents descriptive statistics (events, fatalities) but provides no context for interpreting them. What were the baseline rates before the conflict? How do these figures compare to other conflicts? Without this, claims of "disproportionate impact" or "asymmetric" violence are unsubstantiated.
*   **Exaggerated Claims:** The claim that "credibility emerges through consistent documentation practices" is not proven. Consistency is demonstrated, but credibility requires external validation, which is absent. The finding that mentions of "children" and "hospitals" are common is presented as evidence of "moral witnessing" rather than simply reflecting the realities of urban warfare or the specific coding priorities of ACLED and its sources.
*   **Reproducibility:** While the dataset is named, the specific procedures for the qualitative "thematic analysis" are too vague to be reproducible. The process of moving from keywords to overarching themes like "epistemic resistance" is not transparent.

**D. Contribution to the Field: 2/5**
*   The topic is important, but the contribution is severely undermined by methodological flaws. It does not advance methodological knowledge, as its mixed-methods approach is poorly executed. Its theoretical contribution is a restatement of existing decolonial and epistemic injustice frameworks applied to a new dataset, but without the rigorous evidence required to support the application.

**E. Writing & Presentation: 3/5**
*   The paper is well-structured and written in a fluent academic style. However, this polished presentation masks the underlying conceptual weaknesses. The use of theory is decorative rather than integral to a rigorous analytical framework.

**F. Ethical & Transparency Standards: 2/5**
*   The use of secondary, anonymized data likely meets basic ethical standards. However, there is a significant ethical concern regarding the presentation of speculative demographic estimates (Table 5) as factual results. The lack of transparency about the estimation methodology violates core principles of research integrity. The strong, pre-determined theoretical stance also raises questions about interpretive objectivity.

**3. Strengths**
*   Addresses a timely and critically important subject.
*   Attempts a complex mixed-methods design, which is laudable in ambition.
*   Compiles descriptive statistics from the ACLED dataset for a specific period, which has some archival value.

**4. Weaknesses**
*   **Major:**
    *   Circular reasoning: Using a dataset as both the source of data and the object of trust analysis.
    *   Complete absence of comparative data or external validation to substantiate claims about credibility.
    *   Methodologically unsound and opaque "estimation" of demographic data.
    *   Severe confirmation bias driven by a predetermined theoretical and political stance.
    *   Conflates correlation with causation (e.g., high keyword frequency = intentional humanitarian framing for trust-building, rather than reflection of events).
*   **Minor:**
    *   Reduction of qualitative analysis to keyword counting.
    *   Overuse of jargon ("ethical infrastructure," "epistemic resistance") without operational precision.
    *   The date "July 2025" in the abstract and methodology is a clear error, as the paper is presumably written in the present.

**5. Recommendations for Improvement**
For this paper to be acceptable at a top-tier journal, the authors must fundamentally redesign the study.

1.  **Abandon the Circular Research Question:** The study must either:
    *   **A) Become a critical metadata analysis of ACLED itself:** Compare ACLED's sourcing, coding decisions, and event records against other datasets (UN, Israeli government, Palestinian health ministries, NGO reports) to empirically identify biases, gaps, and variations in "credibility construction." Or,
    *   **B) Study trust perception directly:** Conduct surveys or experiments with different audiences (policymakers, academics, public) to see how presentation of ACLED data versus other data influences perceived credibility.
2.  **Remove the Demographic Estimation:** Excise Table 5 and all conclusions drawn from it entirely. It is irredeemable without a fully specified and validated model.
3.  **Conduct a Genuine Qualitative Analysis:** If qualitative analysis is retained, it must move beyond keyword counts. Perform a rigorous, interpretive thematic analysis on a representative sample of narratives, acknowledging multiple possible interpretations and contextual factors.
4.  **Add Context and Baselines:** Provide pre-conflict baselines and comparisons to other conflicts to give the descriptive statistics meaningful context.
5.  **Tone Down the Rhetoric:** Replace advocacy-oriented language ("epistemic injustice," "moral witnessing" as a given) with neutral, scientific terminology that allows the data to speak for itself.

**6. Verdict**

**Overall Score: 1 - Strong Reject**

**Justification:** This paper has serious, fundamental flaws that preclude publication in its current form. The core methodological approach is circular and invalid for its stated research aims. The statistical estimation of demographics is unsound and unethical in its lack of transparency. The analysis is suffused with confirmation bias that treats a complex dataset as a simple proxy for ground truth. While the topic is of great significance, the study's design and execution do not meet the standards of rigorous science required for a high-impact journal. The path to acceptance would require a complete reconceptualization and redesign of the research, not merely revisions.