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

**Review of "LETHAL GOVERNANCE: CIVILIAN MORTALITY AND SETTLER VIOLENCE IN THE WEST BANK AND EAST JERUSALEM (2023–2025)"**

---

### **🔍 Step 1. Summary of the Paper**
This manuscript analyzes civilian casualties and settler violence in the West Bank and East Jerusalem from October 2023 to October 2025 using the Good Shepherd Collective dataset derived from UN OCHA archives. Employing a mixed-methods concurrent-triangulation design, the authors examine quantitative trends in fatalities, injuries, and attacks alongside qualitative themes of communication, legitimacy, and moral witnessing. The paper claims to:
1. Document systematic patterns of violence and structural challenges to Palestinian life under occupation.
2. Develop a theoretical framework connecting data practices with epistemic justice in conflict zones.
3. Demonstrate how credibility emerges through community verification processes rather than institutional authority.
4. Examine correlations between different forms of violence.
5. Document how data collection functions as moral witnessing.

---

### **🔬 Step 2. Evaluation Criteria**

#### **1. Originality / Novelty**
**Score: 7/10**  
The paper integrates established theories of epistemic injustice (Fricker, 2007) and moral witnessing (Margalit, 2002; Zelizer, 2021) with empirical analysis of violence patterns. While the theoretical framework is not entirely new, the application to contemporary Palestinian data practices and the integration of quantitative violence trends with qualitative epistemic analysis represents a meaningful contribution. The concept of "data witnessing" as both statistical documentation and ethical testimony adds nuance to existing literature.

#### **2. Scientific Rigor / Methodology**
**Score: 5/10**  
**Major Concerns:**
- **Temporal Scope Issues:** The paper claims to cover data through October 2025, but the current date is 2024. This represents either a serious methodological flaw (projection presented as actual data) or a fundamental dating error that undermines credibility.
- **Sampling Limitations:** The qualitative component relies on 46 field testimonies from predetermined sources without clear justification for sample size or representativeness.
- **Statistical Oversimplification:** Correlation coefficients (0.79-0.86) are presented as evidence of "systematic patterns" without adequate consideration of confounding variables or alternative explanations.
- **Missing Methodological Details:** Insufficient information about data cleaning procedures, handling of missing data, or inter-coder reliability for qualitative analysis.

#### **3. Clarity & Presentation**
**Score: 6/10**  
The paper is generally well-structured with clear section organization. However:
- **Abstract Overstatement:** Claims of "systematic patterns" and "strong inter-variable correlations" are presented without adequate methodological caveats.
- **Table Presentation:** Multiple tables contain redundant information and could be consolidated for better readability.
- **Theoretical Jargon:** Excessive use of specialized terminology ("epistemic resilience," "moral arithmetic") without clear operational definitions.

#### **4. Reproducibility & Transparency**
**Score: 4/10**  
**Critical Issues:**
- No data availability statement or access information for the Good Shepherd Collective dataset.
- Insufficient detail on qualitative coding procedures and decision trails.
- Missing information about ethical approval for human participants research.
- Statistical analysis descriptions lack necessary technical details for replication.

#### **5. Significance & Impact**
**Score: 8/10**  
The paper addresses an important humanitarian crisis with potential implications for:
- Humanitarian documentation practices in conflict zones
- Policy responses to settler violence
- Educational approaches to conflict studies
- Theoretical understanding of epistemic injustice

The topic is timely and addresses a significant gap in understanding how credibility is constructed in contested political contexts.

#### **6. Ethics & Integrity**
**Score: 6/10**  
**Concerns:**
- The future-dated data (2025) raises serious questions about data integrity.
- Insufficient discussion of researcher positionality and potential biases despite claiming "continuous reflection."
- Limited acknowledgment of the political nature of the research and its potential implications.
- No explicit statement about IRB approval or ethical oversight.

---

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

#### **Major Revisions Required:**
1. **Address Temporal Inconsistency:** Either provide clear justification for the 2025 data projection methodology or correct the dating error. This is a fundamental issue that must be resolved.
2. **Strengthen Methodological Transparency:** 
   - Provide detailed data collection protocols
   - Include inter-coder reliability measures for qualitative analysis
   - Document data cleaning and validation procedures
3. **Enhance Statistical Rigor:**
   - Control for additional confounding variables in regression analysis
   - Provide confidence intervals for correlation coefficients
   - Consider spatial autocorrelation in geographic analysis
4. **Clarify Theoretical Frameworks:** Operationalize key concepts more clearly and justify theoretical choices.

#### **Minor Revisions:**
1. **Improve Presentation:**
   - Consolidate redundant tables
   - Define specialized terminology upon first use
   - Streamline the literature review section
2. **Enhance Discussion:**
   - More critically engage with limitations
   - Address potential counterarguments to interpretations
   - Strengthen the connection between quantitative and qualitative findings

#### **Additional Analyses to Consider:**
1. Time-series analysis to better understand temporal patterns
2. Network analysis of violence spread across regions
3. Comparative analysis with other conflict zones using similar methodologies
4. More nuanced treatment of the relationship between different types of violence

---

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

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

#### **Recommendation: Reject**

#### **Justification:**
While the paper addresses an important topic with potential theoretical and practical significance, several fatal flaws preclude publication in its current form:

1. **The temporal inconsistency** (data through 2025) represents either a serious methodological error or misrepresentation that fundamentally undermines credibility. If this is projected data, the projection methodology must be clearly described and justified. If it's an error, it suggests inadequate attention to basic factual accuracy.

2. **Methodological transparency is insufficient** for a high-impact journal. The lack of detailed data collection protocols, coding procedures, and statistical validation methods prevents proper evaluation of the findings.

3. **The statistical analysis lacks sophistication** expected for claims of "systematic patterns" and "strong correlations." The presentation of simple correlations as evidence of systematic relationships without adequate controls or consideration of alternative explanations is methodologically weak.

The paper requires substantial methodological revision and clarification before it could be considered for publication. The important topic deserves rigorous treatment, but the current manuscript does not meet the standards of a high-impact journal.

**Note to Editors:** Given the politically sensitive nature of this research, I recommend particularly careful scrutiny of the data verification and methodological rigor. The important subject matter demands the highest standards of scholarly integrity.

---

**Reviewer Signature:**  
Expert Peer Reviewer  
High-Impact Scientific Journal