Vote: Publish as is
[For votes to count, referees must reasonably explain why they voted as they did. Thus, please explain your vote. If you voted to publish pending minor changes, specify each change, why it is needed, and, possibly, how it should/could be done.]
It is the assessment of the reviewer that this paper is competently executed and presents valuable insights. It is therefore recommended that it is published as it is. The ideas presented in this paper are primarily methodological. However, as the article clearly describes how these ideas further scholarly conversations on proven methodological challenges and place them in relation to limitations in the literature, these may be considered an original contribution. Authors present their method, data and some ethical considerations, including their interpretative uncertainties, in a transparent way. As such, this paper will offer a valuable resource for scholars in the field.