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

As an expert peer reviewer for a high-impact journal, I provide this comprehensive review following the specified evaluation framework.

## 📄 Step 1. Summary of the Paper

This manuscript analyzes the "Tech for Palestine boycott dataset" (2023-2025) documenting 197 technology companies allegedly complicit in the Israeli occupation of Palestinian territories. The paper employs a mixed-methods approach combining quantitative analysis of company attributes with qualitative coding of corporate communications and activist responses. The authors claim to demonstrate how grassroots data initiatives function as accountability mechanisms where traditional justice systems are obstructed, offering a framework for understanding digital complicity in asymmetric power dynamics.

## 🔬 Step 2. Evaluation Criteria

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

The application of mixed-methods analysis to this specific dataset represents a moderate contribution. While research on corporate complicity in human rights violations exists, the focus on technology companies in the Palestinian context provides some novelty. However, the theoretical frameworks employed (decolonial theory, epistemic justice, digital witnessing) are well-established in critical studies, and the methodological approach follows standard mixed-methods protocols without significant innovation.

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

**Major Concerns:**
- The risk scoring system (1-5 scale) lacks clear operationalization and validation procedures. The paper provides insufficient detail on how risk scores were assigned, by whom, and with what inter-rater reliability.
- The sampling is entirely based on a pre-existing activist dataset without independent verification of inclusion criteria or representativeness.
- Statistical analysis is limited to descriptive statistics and Spearman correlations without addressing potential confounding variables or employing more sophisticated analytical techniques.
- The qualitative analysis, while following standard thematic analysis procedures, shows potential for confirmation bias given the explicitly decolonial theoretical framing.

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

The paper is generally well-structured and clearly written, with logical progression through introduction, methods, results, and discussion. Tables are informative, though some could be better integrated with the text. The abstract accurately represents the paper's content without significant overstatement. However, the heavy reliance on activist terminology and explicit political positioning may challenge conventional scientific neutrality expectations.

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

**Critical Flaws:**
- No access to the primary dataset is provided for independent verification.
- Coding procedures for both quantitative and qualitative components are inadequately detailed.
- The risk assessment methodology lacks transparency in criteria and application.
- No mention of data/code availability for replication.
- Statistical analyses, while described, cannot be verified without access to raw data.

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

The paper addresses an important and timely issue regarding corporate accountability in conflict zones. The potential impact is significant for human rights advocacy, corporate governance, and international law. The documentation of specific technology companies and their alleged roles provides concrete evidence that could influence policy discussions and corporate behavior.

### 6. Ethics & Integrity
**Score: 5/10**

While the authors acknowledge ethical considerations, several concerns remain:
- The use of an explicitly activist dataset raises questions about objectivity and potential bias.
- Corporate allegations are presented as established facts without sufficient caveats about the contested nature of some claims.
- The paper's explicit political positioning challenges conventional academic neutrality, though this may be intentional given the decolonial framework.
- No evidence of IRB approval or ethical review for research involving potentially sensitive corporate allegations.

## 🧪 Step 3. Specific Suggestions for Improvement

### Major Revisions Required:
1. **Methodological Transparency**: Provide complete documentation of the risk scoring methodology, including detailed criteria, scoring procedures, and validation measures.
2. **Dataset Access**: Make the dataset available for peer review or provide detailed inclusion criteria and verification procedures.
3. **Statistical Rigor**: Employ more sophisticated statistical analyses beyond descriptive statistics and correlations. Consider regression analyses controlling for relevant covariates.
4. **Bias Mitigation**: Address potential confirmation bias through more explicit reflexivity statements and consideration of alternative explanations.
5. **Corporate Perspective**: Include or acknowledge attempts to gather corporate perspectives beyond public statements.

### Minor Revisions:
1. Improve integration of tables with textual explanations.
2. Clarify theoretical contributions beyond application of existing frameworks.
3. Standardize citation format (some references appear incomplete).
4. Reduce reliance on activist terminology in favor of more neutral academic language where possible.

### Additional Analyses to Strengthen:
1. Conduct sensitivity analyses for the risk scoring system.
2. Perform network analysis of corporate relationships and supply chains.
3. Include temporal analysis of corporate responses to documentation efforts.
4. Consider comparative analysis with other conflict contexts.

## 📊 Step 4. Final Decision & Justification

### Final Score: 5/10

### Recommendation: **Reject**

### Justification:

This manuscript addresses an important and timely topic with potential policy significance. However, fundamental methodological flaws preclude publication in its current form in a high-impact journal. The lack of transparency in data collection, risk assessment procedures, and statistical analysis undermines the scientific validity of the findings. The complete dependence on an activist dataset without independent verification or access for peer review represents a fatal flaw for rigorous scientific evaluation.

While the paper makes valuable contributions to discussions of corporate accountability and digital human rights documentation, the methodological limitations are too substantial for publication without complete restructuring and additional empirical work. The authors should address the major concerns regarding methodological transparency, data accessibility, and analytical rigor before resubmission.

The paper might be more suitable for publication in advocacy-oriented or interdisciplinary journals with different methodological standards, but for a high-impact scientific journal requiring rigorous peer review, the current version does not meet the necessary standards of scientific validity and reproducibility.

**Note**: This recommendation is based solely on scientific merit and methodological rigor, not on the political content or ethical positions expressed in the paper.