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

**REVIEWER COMMENTS**

**1. Overall Impression**

My immediate reaction is one of significant methodological and conceptual concern. While the topic of epistemic justice in conflict zones is undoubtedly important, this manuscript presents as an overhyped study that attempts to mask fundamental flaws in research design with sophisticated theoretical framing. The paper feels like an ideological project retrofitted with quantitative indicators rather than a rigorous scientific inquiry. 

Strengths include the ambitious theoretical integration and timely subject matter. However, major concerns include: questionable operationalization of key constructs, circular reasoning in methodology, potential confirmation bias in analysis, and the fundamental problem of analyzing "epistemic injustice" using data that by the authors' own admission may reflect systematic silencing.

**2. Technical & Scientific Assessment**

A. **Problem Definition** - Score: 3/5
• The research question is clearly motivated from a theoretical perspective but suffers from operational ambiguity. While the authors convincingly argue why epistemic justice matters, they fail to establish how their methodological approach can adequately measure it given their own claims about systematic silencing.

B. **Methodological Soundness** - Score: 2/5
• Critical flaws: The operationalization of "Empathic Tone Index" and other indicators appears arbitrary and lacks validation. The claim of "methodological triangulation" is undermined by circular reasoning - using the same ACLED data for both quantitative and qualitative analysis doesn't constitute true triangulation. The statistical analysis is descriptive rather than inferential, with no control for multiple comparisons or temporal autocorrelation.

C. **Results & Evidence** - Score: 2/5
• The correlations presented (e.g., r=0.87 between CTI and IDR) are tautological rather than revealing - these measures likely capture overlapping aspects of conflict intensity. The qualitative analysis shows clear selection bias toward emotionally resonant narratives. Claims about "systematic patterns" are overstated given the descriptive nature of the analysis.

D. **Contribution to the Field** - Score: 2/5
• While the theoretical ambition is notable, the empirical contribution is minimal. The paper repackages existing conflict data with new terminology rather than providing novel insights. The methodological innovations are more apparent than real.

E. **Writing & Presentation** - Score: 4/5
• The paper is well-written and logically organized, with clear theoretical framing. Tables are appropriately presented, though some captions lack sufficient methodological detail.

F. **Ethical & Transparency Standards** - Score: 3/5
• While using publicly available data addresses some ethical concerns, the lack of detailed coding protocols for qualitative analysis and the absence of inter-coder reliability measures undermine transparency. No evidence of misconduct, but methodological choices raise questions about objectivity.

**3. Strengths**

• Ambitious theoretical integration across multiple disciplines
• Timely examination of an important humanitarian issue
• Clear writing and logical organization
• Attempt to bridge quantitative and qualitative approaches

**4. Weaknesses**

**Major Flaws:**
• Circular methodology: Claims to study epistemic injustice using data that may itself reflect that injustice
• Unvalidated indicators: No evidence that "Empathic Tone Index" or other constructed measures actually capture intended constructs
• Statistical naivete: Treating descriptive correlations as evidence of causal mechanisms
• Confirmation bias: Qualitative analysis appears designed to confirm theoretical expectations
• Tautological findings: Many "discoveries" simply restate the conflict's obvious dynamics

**Minor Flaws:**
• Inconsistent citation format in references
• Some theoretical concepts introduced but not fully integrated
• Tables lack sufficient methodological detail for replication

**5. Recommendations for Improvement**

**Required for Resubmission:**
1. **Validation of measures**: Provide empirical evidence that constructed indicators (ETI, CTI, etc.) actually measure intended constructs through pilot testing or external validation.
2. **True methodological triangulation**: Incorporate independent data sources beyond ACLED to avoid circularity.
3. **Robust statistical analysis**: Move beyond descriptive correlations to models that account for confounding factors and temporal dependencies.
4. **Demonstrate qualitative rigor**: Provide intercoder reliability statistics, detailed coding manuals, and evidence of seeking disconfirming cases.
5. **Address selection bias**: Systematically examine what types of testimonies are NOT present in the data and how this affects conclusions.

**Would Strengthen Future Submission:**
• Comparative analysis with other conflict zones to establish generalizability
• Experimental or survey components to directly test credibility attribution
• Network analysis of how testimonies circulate and are validated
• Examination of counter-narratives or contradictory evidence

**6. Verdict**

**Overall Score: 2/5 - WEAK REJECT**

**Justification**: This paper addresses an important topic with theoretical sophistication but suffers from fundamental methodological flaws that undermine its scientific contribution. The circular research design, unvalidated measures, and descriptive statistical approach prevent the paper from providing credible evidence for its claims. While the theoretical framework is promising, the empirical execution fails to meet the standards of a Tier-1 venue. The paper requires substantial methodological revision and additional validation before it could be considered for publication. The burden of proof for claims about epistemic injustice requires more rigorous evidence than provided here.

---

**Reviewer 2 Style Addendum**: I remain deeply skeptical about the empirical foundations of this study. The authors must demonstrate that their methodological approach can actually test rather than simply illustrate their theoretical commitments. The current design appears engineered to produce expected results rather than to genuinely investigate the complex dynamics of testimonial credibility.