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

**Review of "PROTECTION UNDER FIRE: UNRWA, HUMANITARIAN ACCESS, AND CIVILIAN SAFETY IN GAZA (2023-2025)"**

---

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

This manuscript analyzes the erosion of humanitarian protection in Gaza from 2023 to 2025 through systematic examination of UNRWA situation reports and complementary UN datasets. The paper claims to document systematic attacks on UN facilities and denial of humanitarian access, with implications for civilian safety and international humanitarian law compliance. Using a mixed-methods approach combining quantitative analysis of incident patterns (907 documented incidents, 845 shelter deaths, 31% mission impediment rates) with qualitative thematic analysis of institutional reporting, the authors argue these patterns establish conditions fundamentally incompatible with civilian protection norms.

---

### **🔬 Step 2. Evaluation Criteria**

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

The paper applies established mixed-methods approaches to a contemporary conflict context. While documentation of attacks on humanitarian infrastructure exists in other conflicts, the systematic analysis of UNRWA's specific institutional reporting during this period provides temporal novelty. However, the theoretical frameworks (decolonial theory, moral witnessing, epistemic injustice) are well-established in humanitarian studies, and the core finding that attacks on protected spaces undermine civilian protection is not conceptually groundbreaking.

#### **2. Scientific Rigor / Methodology**
**Score: 5/10**

**Major concerns:**
- **Single-source dependency:** Heavy reliance on UNRWA's own reporting creates inherent confirmation bias. The authors acknowledge this but fail to adequately address its implications for validity.
- **Missing methodological details:** No information on intercoder reliability for qualitative analysis, sampling rationale for specific situation reports, or statistical significance testing for correlation coefficients.
- **Unclear temporal scope:** The paper covers 2023-2025 but includes data through September 2025, suggesting either projection or very recent collection, raising questions about data completeness.
- **No counter-narrative analysis:** Fails to systematically examine alternative explanations or conflicting reports that might challenge UNRWA's accounts.

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

The paper is generally well-structured with clear section organization. However, several issues persist:
- **Overuse of theoretical jargon:** Terms like "epistemic injustice" and "moral witnessing" are invoked frequently without sufficient operationalization.
- **Citation inconsistencies:** Multiple placeholder citations (?, ??) throughout the text indicate incomplete referencing.
- **Repetitive findings:** The same statistics (907 incidents, 845 deaths) appear multiple times without progressive analysis.

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

**Critical flaws:**
- No data availability statement or access information for the UNRWA situation reports.
- Missing detailed coding schemes for qualitative analysis.
- Insufficient description of correlation methodology (variables used, handling of missing data).
- No replication materials or code provided.

#### **5. Significance & Impact**
**Score: 8/10**

The topic addresses a critically important humanitarian crisis with implications for international law and policy. The systematic documentation of attacks on protected facilities could inform accountability mechanisms and humanitarian practice. However, the impact is limited by methodological constraints and the polarized nature of the conflict, which may limit objective reception across different stakeholder groups.

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

The use of publicly available data avoids primary ethical concerns. However:
- **Positionality statement** is superficial and doesn't adequately address how researcher perspectives might influence interpretation.
- **Conflict of interest** disclosure is absent despite the politically charged nature of the topic.
- **Limitations section** acknowledges data constraints but doesn't sufficiently address how they might affect conclusions.

---

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

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

1. **Methodological diversification:** Incorporate independent verification sources (satellite imagery, journalist reports, alternative UN agency data) to triangulate UNRWA claims.
2. **Statistical rigor:** Provide p-values, confidence intervals, and detailed explanation of correlation calculations. Consider multivariate analysis to account for confounding factors.
3. **Theoretical integration:** Either substantially deepen the application of decolonial theory and epistemic injustice frameworks or remove superficial references.
4. **Comparative analysis:** Include brief comparison with other conflict zones to contextualize whether these patterns are unique or representative of broader trends.

#### **Minor Revisions:**

1. Complete all missing citations and references.
2. Standardize presentation of statistics (consistent decimal places, clearer labeling).
3. Reduce repetitive phrasing and theoretical name-dropping.
4. Improve figure/table readability with clearer labels and legends.

#### **Additional Analyses to Strengthen:**

1. Time-series analysis to identify patterns in attack frequency and intensity.
2. Geographic mapping of incident distribution.
3. Analysis of how reporting language changes over time as the conflict evolves.
4. Examination of how different types of facilities (schools vs. health centers) experience distinct patterns of attack.

---

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

#### **Overall Score: 5/10**

#### **Recommendation: REJECT**

**Justification:**

This manuscript addresses a critically important topic with potential humanitarian and legal significance. However, fatal methodological flaws preclude publication in its current form. The near-total reliance on a single institutional data source (UNRWA's own reporting) without robust independent verification creates insurmountable validity concerns. While the authors acknowledge this limitation, they fail to implement adequate methodological safeguards against confirmation bias.

The statistical analysis lacks rigor (no significance testing, unclear variable construction), and the qualitative analysis suffers from insufficient methodological transparency. The theoretical frameworks are invoked superficially rather than being meaningfully integrated into the analysis.

The paper could become publishable with substantial revisions including: (1) incorporation of multiple independent data sources, (2) rigorous statistical analysis with proper testing, (3) deeper theoretical engagement, and (4) complete documentation of methods and data. However, in its present form, the methodological limitations are too fundamental to support the paper's strong conclusions about systematic patterns and their implications for international law.

---

**Reviewer 01**  
*Expert in Humanitarian Studies & Conflict Research*  
[Journal Name]