Determinants of Tax Decisions in Jordan: Income and Sales Auditor Perspective

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Topic

The topic assesses the “Factors Affecting the Issuance of a Tax Decision from the Point of View of the Income and Sales Auditor in Jordan”. Although the topic does not include any abbreviation, it is complex for easy comprehension. I suggest a topic below:

“Determinants of Tax Decision in Jordan: Income and Sales Auditor Perspective”.

 

Abstract

The abstract needs improvement. Authors have to include the following in the abstract: research problem, research objective(s), methodology, findings, and implications/recommendations. The current abstract does not feature all these. Besides, some sentences are not clear and lacks understandability. Few examples are:

-        The purpose of the research intended to examine….

-        Regarding the tax assessment determination and the perspective standpoint of the sales and income auditing agencies in Jordan.

-        The primary recommendation proved the recommendation that…..

-        Another important point had been the fact that the taxation the auditor should not get involved in arguments with taxpayers.

-        Finally, it should be emphasized the fact that the power source tax the auditor should not be pressured by the department …….

Please re-write the abstract to make it clear and understandable. Kindly correct all grammatical errors.

 

Keywords

Please Effectiveness of Tax Audit cannot be a keyword. Kindly make it “Tax Audit”.

 

Introduction

·       The current introduction needs major revision. The whole of the introduction includes only two citations. This is unacceptable in academic work. Please include more citations to recognize other researchers’ work.

·       Also, the problem statement and research gap(s) are not featured in the current introduction. Please identify the research problem, and include the research gap(s) in the introduction.

·       Moreover, feature the contributions of the study right after the research objectives.

·       Achieving seven objectives in a research paper is too much. Please reduce the objectives.

·       Additionally, proof-read the entire introduction to correct all typos and grammatical errors. Some examples are:

-        several nations have established up professional tax agencies to collect collecting taxes from citizens (collect not collect collecting).

-        The audit's judgment is based on a number of internal as well as external factor (auditor’s judgment not audit’s judgement).

-        The auditing self-determination, level of higher education (auditor’s self-determination not auditing self-determination).

 

Conceptual Framework and Previous Studies: (please remove the colon)

·       The literature review is appropriate.

Methodology

·       Please justify the sample size and sampling technique

·       Identify how the constructs were measured.

·       Include the sources of the measurement items/ where they were adapted from.

·       While the authors collected primary data, no reliability and validity tests were conducted. As a pre-requisite to primary data, please check the reliability and validity of the data using Cronbach’s Alpha, etc.

Results

·       No results section was provided.

·       I noticed that the authors included the results as part of the methodology. Notwithstanding, the presentation of results are different from the research objectives. Please provide the results based on the research objectives. Consequently, select the appropriate statistical method for each objective.

·       I noticed that the authors tested for hypotheses, meanwhile no hypothesis was formulated.

 

Discussion

Discussion section was not included. Please include this section to compare the present study’s findings with past studies.

Conclusions, Recommendations and Further Studies

In the conclusion section, summarize the findings of the study. Thereafter, draw conclusions/implications from the findings.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Please proof-read the entire manuscript to correct all grammatical mistakes and typos. Some examples have been indicated in my comments above.

Author Response

We would like to express our gratitude to the reviewer for their detailed and insightful feedback on our manuscript titled “Factors Affecting the Issuance of a Tax Decision from the Point of View of the Income and Sales Auditor in Jordan.” We appreciate the time and effort taken to review our work and provide suggestions that have been invaluable in improving the quality of the manuscript. Below, we provide detailed responses to each of the concerns raised and specify how we addressed them in the revised manuscript. All changes made are highlighted in red for your review.

 

Title Revision

 

The reviewer suggested simplifying and clarifying the manuscript’s title to make it easier for comprehension. We have revised the title as recommended to:

“Determinants of Tax Decision in Jordan: Income and Sales Auditor Perspective”

This change has been implemented in the manuscript, and all related references have been updated accordingly. Changes are marked in red.

 

Abstract

 

The reviewer noted that the abstract required substantial improvement, emphasizing the need to include the research problem, research objectives, methodology, findings, and implications/recommendations. We have re-written the abstract in a clearer, more concise, and grammatically correct manner. Specific attention was paid to correcting unclear sentences and grammatical errors, such as those highlighted in the reviewer’s comment.

 

All sections of the abstract now address the following:

•Clear statement of the research problem.

•Explicit research objectives.

•Methodological approach.

•Key findings summarized logically.

•Practical and theoretical implications and recommendations.

 

These revisions ensure that the abstract is comprehensive and accessible. All changes are highlighted in red for ease of review.

 

Keywords

 

The reviewer identified that “Effectiveness of Tax Audit” should not be a keyword. We revised the keywords to include “Tax Audit” as recommended. The updated keywords section has been corrected and is now properly aligned with the study’s focus. Changes are highlighted in red.

 

Introduction

 

The reviewer noted several issues in the introduction, including limited citations, missing research problem statements, an incomplete identification of research gaps, and overly numerous research objectives. The revised introduction addresses these points by:

1.Including additional relevant citations to strengthen the academic foundation and acknowledge prior research contributions.

2.Clearly identifying the research problem and highlighting the research gap(s) to establish the study’s significance.

3.Reducing the number of research objectives from seven to four clear, focused objectives to ensure clarity and alignment with the study’s scope.

4.Proofreading the introduction to eliminate typographical and grammatical errors, such as the corrections from “collect collecting” to “collect” and similar adjustments.

 

All changes made to the introduction are highlighted in red to ensure clarity and ease of review.

 

Conceptual Framework and Previous Studies

 

The reviewer asked to remove the colon (”:”) from the heading. This change has been implemented in the manuscript as requested. The literature review section has been appropriately revised, and all changes are highlighted in red for review.

 

Methodology

 

The reviewer identified key areas that required expansion and justification in the methodology. We have revised this section to address these points comprehensively:

1.Sample Size & Sampling Technique Justification: The sampling technique and size have now been justified to ensure transparency and align with the research objectives.

2.Measurement Constructs: We identified and elaborated on how constructs were measured, with a clear description of adapted measurement tools. Sources have been explicitly referenced.

3.Reliability and Validity: We conducted reliability and validity tests using Cronbach’s Alpha to ensure that the data collection instrument meets statistical standards. These analyses have been added to the methodology section.

 

All revisions related to the methodology are highlighted in red for ease of review.

 

Results

 

The reviewer highlighted that no distinct results section was provided and that findings were presented as part of the methodology. To address this:

1.We have created a separate Results Section that aligns directly with the study’s research objectives.

2.We have applied appropriate statistical methods for hypothesis testing and results analysis in line with the research objectives.

3.Hypotheses have now been explicitly formulated and tested, in line with standard statistical practices.

 

All statistical methods, analyses, and results are now presented in a well-structured results section. Changes are marked in red for ease of review.

 

Discussion Section

 

The reviewer noted that the discussion section was missing. We have added a comprehensive Discussion Section that compares the study’s findings with previous literature. This comparison highlights both similarities and differences, providing a deeper understanding of the findings’ implications. The discussion has been contextualized to show how the study adds to existing research, particularly in relation to administrative pressures, auditor independence, and professional experience. Changes are highlighted in red.

 

Conclusions, Recommendations, and Further Studies

 

The conclusions section has been revised to summarize the key findings effectively while emphasizing their implications. The recommendations are now practical and actionable, based on the findings. Additionally, the section suggests areas for future research, providing guidance for extending this study in other contexts or with different tax systems. All these points are now more directly linked to the findings and the original research objectives. Changes are highlighted in red.

 

English Language & Grammar

 

The reviewer emphasized the need to proofread the manuscript for grammatical errors and typos. We have conducted a thorough review of the entire manuscript, correcting all grammatical issues, typographical errors, and ensuring the language is clear, concise, and academic. Specific corrections have been made to sentences like:

•Page 1: Corrected “the taxation the auditor should not get involved” for grammatical clarity.

•Page 7: Fixed “it seems that auditor think that seminars greatly improve.”

•Page 22: Corrected “Taxes regulations” to “tax regulations.”

 

All language corrections are highlighted in red.

 

Final Comments

 

We believe that the revisions and changes made fully address all the reviewer’s comments and suggestions. These improvements have strengthened the manuscript by enhancing clarity, correcting language issues, improving methodology and data analysis, and better connecting the findings to the research objectives and problem statement. All changes are highlighted in red for convenience in reviewing the revised manuscript.

 

We extend our gratitude for the feedback and guidance provided and look forward to any further input you may have.

 

Sincerely,

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1) Through this paper, the authors aimed to examine, from the point of view of tax audit firms, the influence of internal and external variables that affect such a choice in order to issue a compliance certificate, which is why external as well as internal considerations influence the choice to conduct a tax audit. From this study, after testing the presented hypotheses, a series of recommendations emerged on the factors that influence the issuance of a tax decision from the point of view of the revenue and sales auditor in Jordan.

The strengths of the paper in my opinion are represented by the analysis of the conceptual framework and previous studies consulted in the field addressed.

The weaknesses are given by the lack of a research question for this study, a poorly presented summary and an incompletely detailed methodology.

In my opinion, the novel elements found are represented by the recommendations formulated by the authors after testing the hypotheses.

2) In general, the manuscript has an adequate structure and provides a good analysis of the factors that influence the issuance of a tax decision from the point of view of the revenue and sales auditor in Jordan by using a descriptive-analytical research based on the application of a questionnaire in the investigated field.

3) The methodology section is incomplete, in the sense that it does not present the methods of obtaining and evaluating the data and hypotheses used in the study, although regression analysis is used in testing the hypotheses, so I recommend adding them.

4) The results section presents the findings resulting from the analysis of internal and external variables, as well as the testing of the 7 hypotheses formulated and based on the information in the tables of the previous section consistent with what was explained in the methodology. All the findings correspond to those investigated in other studies conducted in the field addressed.

5) The conclusions section presents a brief summary of the study results based on which a series of relevant recommendations in this field were formulated for a country such as Jordan. A series of new trends are also presented for future studies in the field investigated, which should provide profound perspectives on improving tax audit systems and improving tax compliance in various regions.

I mention that elements of study limitations must also be added to this section.

7) The bibliographical references consulted are current and relevant to the problem addressed by this paper, but can also be improved with studies related to the years 2023 -2024.

8) The tables and figures presented are correct, adequate, contain relevant data and information resulting from the interview conducted and calculations, but the source is not presented. I recommend adding the source.

9) In order to increase the value of the study, I recommend that the following improvements be made in addition to those presented above:

- reformulating the summary, in the sense of presenting, in addition to the purpose and objectives of the study, the methods used, the results obtained and the relevant conclusions;

- in line 455, hypothesis 3 should be modified to hypothesis 4;

- regarding table 16, reviewing the correct framing of the text in the table header.

Author Response

I would like to express my sincere gratitude for your valuable feedback and insightful comments on our manuscript titled “Factors Influencing Tax Auditors’ Decisions in Jordan.” We truly appreciate the time and effort you have dedicated to reviewing our work and providing thoughtful suggestions to enhance its quality. We have carefully addressed each of your points and revised the manuscript accordingly. All changes requested are highlighted in red in the manuscript for your convenience. Below is a detailed response to each of your concerns:

 

1. Abstract - Specification of Aim and Sample Research Period

 

We have clarified the research aim and provided additional details about the sample’s time period within the abstract. This revision ensures that readers have a clear and comprehensive understanding of the study’s scope, objectives, and methodology. The changes are highlighted in red in the manuscript.

 

2. Introduction - Explanation of Findings Beyond the Jordanian Context

 

We expanded the Introduction section* to provide a deeper explanation of why the study’s findings are critical beyond the Jordanian context. Comparisons have been made with other Middle Eastern nations’ tax systems to identify similarities and differences, offering insights into regional and global tax administration challenges. These comparisons strengthen the manuscript’s relevance and applicability across similar economic contexts. Changes and additions are marked in red in the manuscript.

 

3. Literature Review - Identifying Gaps and Incorporating Recent Research

 

We revised the Literature Review section* by implementing the following improvements:

•Clearly comparing our findings with prior research to highlight agreements and areas of divergence.

•Addressing gaps in the literature by focusing on underexplored areas such as auditor independence, ethical training, and administrative pressures.

•Incorporating recent and updated research (from 2020 onward) to ensure the analysis remains timely, relevant, and provides fresh insights into the study of tax audit practices.

 

All modifications and additions are highlighted in red in the manuscript for your review.

 

4. Conclusion - Reconnecting with Research Objectives and Comparing Tax Practices

 

The Conclusion section* has been revised and strengthened by revisiting the original research problem and directly linking the findings to the stated research objectives. Furthermore, comparisons have been drawn between Jordanian tax practices and those of other Middle Eastern nations to provide a broader perspective on regional tax administration challenges and opportunities. These comparisons offer insights into shared and divergent practices, enhancing the study’s practical relevance. Changes are highlighted in red.

 

5. Language and Grammar Improvements

 

We conducted a thorough proofread of the manuscript to address grammatical errors and improve clarity, as per your suggestion. Specific corrections include:

•Page 1: Revised a sentence for improved grammatical clarity.

•Page 7: Fixed phrasing to ensure logical flow and coherence.

•Page 22: Corrected “tax regulations” for proper grammatical accuracy.

 

All grammatical revisions and language improvements are highlighted in red in the manuscript for your review.

 

We believe that the revisions have successfully addressed all of your concerns, improving the manuscript’s quality, clarity, and relevance. We are grateful for your time, guidance, and the opportunity to refine our research. We look forward to receiving any further feedback you may have.

 

Sincerely,

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript provides valuable insights into factors influencing tax auditors’ decisions in Jordan. However, it is necessary to improve current manuscript form. The following corrections are:

1. Abstract - please specify the aim and sample research (time period).

1. Introduction - this section should further elaborate on why the study's findings are critical beyond the Jordanian context.

2. Literature review - section uses various sources but doesn't clearly show how its findings match or differ from other studies. Focusing more on identifying gaps in knowledge would improve the study's uniqueness. Additionally, there are few citations from recent years. Include fresh research which will provide better context and make the study more relevant.  

3. Conclusion - This section summarizes findings effectively but does not revisit the original research problem. A direct link between the findings and the stated research objectives would make the conclusion more impactful. Comparing Jordanian tax practices with those of other nations, especially within the Middle East.

Language - check and correct occasional grammatical errors. For instance,

Page 1 sentence: the taxation the auditor should not get involved in arguments with taxpayers."

Page 7 - It seems that auditor think that seminars greatly improve

Page 22 - Taxes regulations

Please change and revise manuscript in the context of English language.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Language - check and correct occasional grammatical errors. For instance,

Page 1 sentence: the taxation the auditor should not get involved in arguments with taxpayers."

Page 7 - It seems that auditor think that seminars greatly improve

Page 22 - Taxes regulations

Please change and revise manuscript in the context of English language.

Author Response

I would like to thank you for your valuable feedback and insightful comments on our manuscript titled “Factors Influencing Tax Auditors’ Decisions in Jordan.” We appreciate the time and effort you have taken to review our work and provide guidance to improve its quality. We have carefully addressed each of your points and revised the manuscript accordingly. All changes requested are highlighted in red for your convenience. Below is a detailed response to each of your concerns:

 

1. Abstract - Specification of Aim and Sample Research Period

 

We have clarified the research aim and provided additional details about the sample’s time period within the abstract. This ensures that readers have a clearer understanding of the study’s scope and methodology. The changes are highlighted in red in the manuscript.

 

2. Introduction - Explanation of Findings Beyond the Jordanian Context

 

We expanded the Introduction section* to elaborate on why the findings are critical beyond the Jordanian context. We made comparisons with other Middle Eastern nations’ tax systems to show the similarities and differences that affect tax administration practices. This contextual comparison provides a broader understanding of how the study’s insights apply regionally and globally. Changes and additions are marked in red in the manuscript.

 

3. Literature Review - Identifying Gaps and Incorporating Recent Research

 

We have revised the Literature Review section* by:

•Clearly comparing our findings with existing studies to highlight agreements and contrasts.

•Addressing identified gaps in knowledge by focusing on underexplored areas, such as auditor independence, ethical training, and administrative pressures.

•Including recent and updated studies to ensure our analysis provides fresh and relevant insights into tax audit practices.

 

All modifications, additions, and revisions are highlighted in red in the manuscript for your review.

 

4. Conclusion - Reconnecting with Research Objectives and Comparing Tax Practices

 

The Conclusion section* has been strengthened by revisiting the original research problem and directly linking the findings to the stated research objectives. Additionally, comparisons have been made between Jordanian tax practices and those of other Middle Eastern countries. This comparison highlights regional challenges and insights into shared and divergent tax administration practices, which enhance the manuscript’s broader relevance. Changes are highlighted in red.

 

5. Language and Grammar Improvements

 

We have thoroughly reviewed the manuscript to correct grammatical errors and improve clarity and fluency, as per your suggestion. Specific corrections include:

•Page 1: Revised the sentence for grammatical clarity.

•Page 7: Fixed errors in phrasing to ensure logical flow and coherence.

•Page 22: Corrected “tax regulations” for grammatical accuracy.

 

All changes related to grammar and language have been revised and are highlighted in red in the manuscript.

 

We believe that the revisions have fully addressed all of your concerns and improved the manuscript’s quality, clarity, and relevance. Thank you again for your feedback, guidance, and time. We look forward to hearing your further thoughts on the revised manuscript.

 

Sincerely,

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I am very satisfied with the current manuscript. I commend the authors for addressing my comments vividly. On this note, I recommend the manuscript under its current condition for publication in this prestigious journal.

Author Response

We sincerely thank you for your positive feedback and recommendation for our manuscript. We are delighted to know that our revisions have effectively addressed your comments. Your encouraging words motivate us to maintain the quality of our work, and we are honored by your recommendation for publication in such a prestigious journal.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This new version of the paper has been improved according to the requirements of the previous evaluation, but some minor aspects related to the form have remained undone, namely:

- in line 465 hypothesis 3 is actually 4;

- the source of the tables has not been added;

- the bibliographical references from no. 28 to 42 are missing;

- the content of line 734 will be deleted.

Author Response

We sincerely thank you for your positive feedback and recommendation for our manuscript. We are delighted to know that our revisions have effectively addressed your comments. Your encouraging words motivate us to maintain the quality of our work, and we are honored by your recommendation for publication in such a prestigious journal.

We have carefully addressed all the points raised as follows:

•In line 465, we have corrected the hypothesis number from 3 to 4.

•The sources of the tables have been added as required.

•The bibliographical references have been thoroughly reviewed, and all references not present in the study have been removed to ensure accuracy.

•The content of line 734 has been deleted as suggested.

We greatly appreciate your effort in reviewing our manuscript and providing constructive feedback, which has significantly improved the quality of our work.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf