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

## **Comprehensive Peer Review**

### **Step 1. Summary of the Paper**
This paper presents a critical discourse analysis examining how institutional language in healthcare and human rights contexts functions to systematically erase Palestinian suffering. The authors identify and theorize two core discursive mechanisms: **"procedural absolution"** (the pattern of acknowledging the contestability of a claim like genocide, only to neutralize it through bureaucratic, technical, or legal deferral) and the resulting **"double bind"** for advocates (who must either engage with erasing frameworks or be dismissed as unreasonable). The claimed contribution is to empirically demonstrate how discourse moves from acknowledging contestability to re-imposing closure, thereby rationalizing the exclusion of Palestinian experiences from humanitarian concern and historical record. The method involves qualitative analysis of 85 institutional documents (reports, journal articles, policy briefs) from 2010-2024, using NVivo-assisted coding to identify linguistic patterns.

### **Step 2. Evaluation Criteria**

**1. Originality / Novelty**
*   **Qualitative Critique:** The paper's core strength is its conceptual originality. While discourse analysis of institutional language and critiques of depoliticization are well-established (citing Ferguson, Fricker), the specific synthesis of these ideas to analyze the *management of genocide claims* within *healthcare discourse* is novel. The constructs of "procedural absolution" and the "double bind," as applied to this specific socio-political context, represent a genuine theoretical contribution. It moves beyond documenting health disparities to interrogating the linguistic architecture that sustains them.
*   **Score:** 8/10

**2. Scientific Rigor / Methodology**
*   **Qualitative Critique:** The methodological description is detailed and largely sound for a qualitative discourse analysis. Strengths include a clear purposive sampling strategy, a multi-phase coding process, use of software, and efforts to ensure validity (peer debriefing, member checking, intercoder reliability κ=0.82). However, significant flaws exist:
    *   **Corpus Construction Bias:** The search terms ("healthcare" AND "Palestine") may systematically exclude documents where the political context (occupation, conflict) is the primary frame and "healthcare" is a secondary mention. This could skew the corpus toward documents already primed for a technical health framing.
    *   **Lack of Comparative Control:** The analysis lacks a comparative element (e.g., analyzing discourse on another contested conflict zone). This makes it difficult to ascertain whether the identified mechanisms are specific to the Palestinian case or generic features of institutional discourse in protracted conflicts. The claim of "systematic erasure" is thus harder to substantiate.
    *   **Circularity in Analysis:** The coding scheme appears tautological. Deductive codes like "acknowledgment of contestability" and "re-imposition of closure" are the very phenomena the study sets out to prove. While iterative coding is standard, the risk of confirming pre-existing theoretical constructs is high and not sufficiently mitigated.
    *   **Ethical Approval:** Not applicable, as the study uses publicly available documents.
*   **Score:** 5/10

**3. Clarity & Presentation**
*   **Qualitative Critique:** The paper is well-structured, and the writing is sophisticated, albeit dense and occasionally jargon-heavy ("socio-linguistic field," "epistemic erasure"). The abstract and conclusions accurately reflect the paper's claims, though the significance is stated rather grandly. The tables (1 & 2) are helpful but rudimentary; visualizations of discursive networks or example text deconstructions would be more informative. A major flaw is the **complete absence of direct quotations from the corpus in the main text**. The results section describes patterns and provides paraphrased examples ("a 2022 WHO report states..."), but without seeing the actual language, the reader cannot evaluate the authors' interpretive claims. This severely undermines transparency and persuasiveness.
*   **Score:** 4/10

**4. Reproducibility & Transparency**
*   **Qualitative Critique:** The paper promises a "detailed protocol" for replication, including search terms, criteria, and a coding scheme. This is good practice. However, the critical failure noted above—withholding the primary data (quotes) from the reader—makes the analysis fundamentally irreproducible for the reviewer. The claim that the corpus can be "reconstructed" is burdensome and does not allow for verification of the central interpretive act: how specific phrases were coded and categorized. Statistical summaries (percentages) are provided, but the raw textual evidence is absent.
*   **Score:** 3/10

**5. Significance & Impact**
*   **Qualitative Critique:** The paper addresses a profoundly important problem at the intersection of global health, human rights, and political discourse. Its potential impact is high within critical social science, genocide studies, and decolonial health policy scholarship. It offers a powerful lens for advocates and scholars to deconstruct institutional neutrality. However, its impact on mainstream health policy or medical journals may be limited due to its overtly critical and theoretical stance. The work is more likely to be influential in shifting analytical frameworks than in prompting immediate institutional change.
*   **Score:** 7/10

**6. Ethics & Integrity**
*   **Qualitative Critique:** No overt plagiarism or data manipulation is apparent. The authors acknowledge the study's sensitive nature. A significant concern is **positionality and conflict of interest**. The paper is framed by a clear and specific political critique. While this is a valid scholarly stance, the manuscript in its current "double-blind" form with anonymous authors completely elides the necessary discussion of **author positionality**. In research of this nature, the authors' own situatedness is a critical part of the intellectual rigor. This omission must be addressed.
*   **Score:** 5/10

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

**Major Flaws (Must be addressed for reconsideration):**
1.  **Include Direct Quotations:** The Results section **must** integrate numerous, verbatim, representative quotations from the corpus to illustrate *every* key finding (e.g., "acknowledgment and neutralization," specific modal verb uses, double-bind language). These should be presented with clear citations to the source document.
2.  **Address Methodological Circularity/Bias:** Revise the methodology section to:
    *   Acknowledge and discuss the risk of confirmatory bias inherent in the deductive coding approach.
    *   Justify the lack of a comparative case or explain how the analysis internally controlled for generic features of bureaucratic language.
    *   Consider broadening or justifying the corpus search strategy to mitigate potential selection bias.
3.  **Add Positionality Statement:** A dedicated subsection (e.g., in Methods or as a separate ethics note) must be added, where the authors reflect on their own positions, backgrounds, and potential biases relative to the topic. This is non-negotiable for ethical and intellectual transparency in critical research.
4.  **Strengthen the Discussion of Limitations:** The current limitations section is standard but inadequate. It must be expanded to seriously engage with the methodological critiques above (corpus bias, circularity, lack of comparators) and discuss how these limitations affect the strength and generalizability of the conclusions.

**Minor Flaws:**
1.  Improve figure/table quality. Consider a figure mapping the discursive process of procedural absolution.
2.  The reference to Alejandro (2025) in the background seems anachronistic or an error; clarify or correct.
3.  Reduce jargon where possible to enhance accessibility without sacrificing analytical depth.
4.  Proofread for minor formatting inconsistencies (e.g., spacing in "re -imposing").

**Suggestions for Strengthening:**
*   Consider a small, focused comparative analysis (even within the discussion) by briefly examining a few documents from another conflict context. This would powerfully demonstrate whether the mechanisms are distinctive or generalized.
*   The "Future Work" section could propose specific, testable strategies for "disrupting" procedural absolution, moving from critique to constructive intervention.

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

*   **Overall Score:** 5/10 (Marginal/Requires Major Revision)
*   **Recommendation:** **Reject** in its current form, but with a clear invitation for a **major resubmission** upon addressing the fundamental flaws.

**Justification:**
This paper presents a highly original and potentially significant theoretical argument that tackles an issue of great importance. Its ambition and interdisciplinary reach are commendable. However, in its present state, the manuscript is **methodologically unsound for publication in a high-impact journal**. The fatal flaw is the complete lack of primary textual evidence presented to the reader, rendering the core analysis unverifiable and irreproducible within the review process. This is compounded by unaddressed risks of methodological circularity and selection bias, and a serious omission regarding author positionality.

While the conceptual framework of "procedural absolution" and the "double bind" is compelling, the empirical demonstration is currently more asserted than proven. The authors have the burden of proof to show the *how* through the *what* (the actual language). Until they provide that evidence and rigorously address the methodological and ethical concerns raised, the paper's valuable insights remain intriguing hypotheses rather than substantiated scholarly contributions.

The work has considerable promise. If the authors can comprehensively revise the manuscript to include direct evidence, bolster its methodological rigor, and incorporate necessary reflexive elements, it could become a strong candidate for publication. Therefore, a reject decision is warranted, but with explicit guidance for a transformative resubmission.