Benchmarking Jordan’s Trade Role: A Comparative Analysis of Logistics Infrastructure, Geopolitical Position, and Regional Integration
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis study draws on multiple data sources—the World Bank LPI, OECD TFIs, UNCTAD PPS, and GPI/FSI—to synthesize a four-domain benchmark (“logistics infrastructure—trade facilitation—port competitiveness—geo-stability”) and conduct a cross-sectional comparison of trade and logistics readiness for Jordan and other countries; however, the manuscript has numerous problems and insufficient novelty:
1.The citation/reference formatting is inconsistent; please standardize it according to the journal’s requirements.
2.Review the manuscript for grammar and correct any grammatical errors.
3.The indicators used in the paper are not supported by explicit formulas.
4.In Section 3.3.2: (i) calling 0–1 scaling “binary” is misleading (it suggests dichotomous variables); (ii) no specific formulas, handling of positive/negative orientation, reference set (sample/global), or treatment of missing/outlier values; (iii) no justification for the weights of the four indices; and (iv) the procedure for the “inverse-normalized” Geo-Stab is not provided.
5.Figure 2 lacks clarity; please increase its resolution.
6.Section 4.6 is titled and described as “Trade Volume and Network Analysis,” yet the text only lists top export markets and categories, with no network metrics.
7.Why is 5.6 “Future Research Directions” placed before 5.5 “Limitations and future directions”? Sections 5.5 and 5.6 also contain overlapping content.
8.Both “OECD-TFIs” and “OECD-TFIS” appear in the manuscript; if they refer to the same item, please unify the notation.
Author Response
Thank you for your constructive feedback. Below we provide point-by-point responses; all changes are reflected in the revised manuscript.
Comment 1: The citation/reference formatting is inconsistent; please standardize it according to the journal’s requirements.
Response: We revised and standardized all in-text citations and references according to Economies style. References are now consistent, complete, and highlighted in the manuscript in (green color).
Comment 2: Review the manuscript for grammar and correct any grammatical errors.
Response: The manuscript was carefully edited for grammar and readability. Errors in articles, verb agreement, and sentence flow were corrected, and changes are highlighted in blue for easy review.
Comment 3: The indicators used in the paper are not supported by explicit formulas.
Response: Explicit formulas for normalization, domain indices, and the composite index were added in Section 3.3.2. These are supported with full data tables in the new Appendices A–C.
Comment 4: In Section 3.3.2: (i) calling 0–1 scaling “binary” is misleading; (ii) no specific formulas, handling of positive/negative orientation, reference set (sample/global), or treatment of missing/outlier values; (iii) no justification for the weights of the four indices; and (iv) the procedure for the “inverse-normalized” Geo-Stab is not provided.
Response: Section 3.3.2 was revised. The wording 'binary' was changed to '0–1 continuous scale,' formulas were added, weights were justified, and the inverse min–max normalization procedure (see Section 3.3.2 and Appendices B–C) for the Geo-Stab index is now explained. Supporting details are provided in the new Appendices A–C.
Comment 5: Figure 2 lacks clarity; please increase its resolution.
Response: Figure 2 has been regenerated in high resolution (≥300 dpi) with clearer labels and improved readability.
Comment 6: Section 4.6 is titled and described as “Trade Volume and Network Analysis,” yet the text only lists top export markets and categories, with no network metrics.
Response: The section title was revised to 'Trade Volume and Export Structure' to better reflect the content.
Comment 7: Why is 5.6 “Future Research Directions” placed before 5.5 “Limitations and future directions”? Sections 5.5 and 5.6 also contain overlapping content.
Response: The section order was corrected so that 5.5 is 'Limitations' and 5.6 is 'Future Research Directions,' with overlaps removed.
Comment 8: Both “OECD-TFIs” and “OECD-TFIS” appear in the manuscript; if they refer to the same item, please unify the notation.
Response: The terminology was standardized throughout. The term is now consistently 'OECD-TFIs' in the text, tables, and references.
Please see attached table for Location in Revised Manuscript
Thank you again for your time and efforts
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
- Data Inconsistency Across Years：
A critical problem is the inconsistent temporal coverage of indicators (e.g., UNCTAD Port Performance Scorecard 2020–2021 vs. OECD-TFIs 2025 vs. World Bank-LPI 2023). Benchmarking indices that are not contemporaneous introduces severe comparability issues. Without demonstrating either (a) normalization across years, (b) interpolation/smoothing, or (c) robustness checks, the results risk being misleading. This is a fatal flaw unless the authors can prove that year-mismatch does not bias composite indices. - Composite Index Construction Transparency
The methodology for constructing composite indices is insufficiently transparent. It is unclear: Whether min–max normalization used global or regional reference ranges. How categorical variables were quantified. Whether weights are equal or empirically derived .This lack of clarity makes replication impossible. Without detailed formulas and an appendix with raw and normalized data, the benchmarking loses credibility. - Port Competitiveness Measurement Problem:
Treating governance type (public vs. public–private) as a numerical input in the Port-C index is methodologically questionable. Governance structure is a categorical explanatory factor, not a performance outcome. Its inclusion risks double-counting institutional quality and artificially depressing Jordan’s score. This undermines the validity of the Port-C index. A sensitivity test (with and without governance type) is required.
REFERENCESPort ship congestion and Port-oriented cities air pollution: the role of machine learning models in transportation environmental governance
Recent advancements in alternative energies, technological innovations, and optimization strategies for seaport decarbonization
Key factors for non-polar use of the Northern Sea Route: A Korean point of view
Critical success factors for implementing digital human resources: Insights from the shipping sector
Overview of Sustainable Maritime Transport Optimization and Operations
Author Response
Thank you for your constructive feedback. Below we provide point-by-point responses; all changes are reflected in the revised manuscript.
Comment 1: Data Inconsistency Across Years: A critical problem is the inconsistent temporal coverage of indicators (e.g., UNCTAD Port Performance Scorecard 2020–2021 vs. OECD-TFIs 2025 vs. World Bank-LPI 2023). Benchmarking indices that are not contemporaneous introduces severe comparability issues. Without demonstrating either (a) normalization across years, (b) interpolation/smoothing, or (c) robustness checks, the results risk being misleading.
Response: We added a clarification in Section 3.3.2 highlighting that normalization was conducted using global reference ranges (all countries in each dataset), ensuring comparability despite different years. We explicitly noted that interpolation was avoided to preserve the integrity of official indicators. Robustness checks (Appendix C) confirm that year mismatches do not bias the composite indices. These clarifications are highlighted in yellow.
Comment 2: Composite Index Construction Transparency: The methodology for constructing composite indices is insufficiently transparent. It is unclear: Whether min–max normalization used global or regional reference ranges. How categorical variables were quantified. Whether weights are equal or empirically derived. Without detailed formulas and an appendix with raw and normalized data, the benchmarking loses credibility.
Response: Section 3.3.2 was expanded to provide explicit formulas for min–max normalization, specify that global reference ranges were used, and clarify how categorical variables were coded. We also confirmed that equal weights were applied for transparency, with robustness tests using PCA- and entropy-based weights (Appendix C). Appendix A reports the raw values, Appendix B the normalized (0–1) scores, and Appendix C the robustness checks (PCA/entropy weights and the Port‑C sensitivity). Revisions are highlighted in yellow and orange.
Comment 3: Port Competitiveness Measurement Problem: Treating governance type (public vs. public–private) as a numerical input in the Port-C index is methodologically questionable. Governance structure is a categorical explanatory factor, not a performance outcome. Its inclusion risks double-counting institutional quality and artificially depressing Jordan’s score. This undermines the validity of the Port-C index. A sensitivity test (with and without governance type) is required.
Response: We conducted a sensitivity analysis excluding governance from the Port-C index. The results (Appendix C) show that Jordan’s Port-C score increases slightly (+0.02) when governance is excluded, but the overall ranking remains unchanged. This confirms that our main findings are robust. Appendix C has been updated and the note revised accordingly.
Comment 4: References: The reviewer suggested including additional recent studies on port congestion, decarbonization, Northern Sea Route, digital HR, and sustainable maritime transport optimization.
Response: We integrated the suggested references into Section 2 (Literature Review) where relevant: (i) port congestion/air pollution and seaport decarbonization under Port Governance, (ii) Northern Sea Route under Geopolitical Stability, (iii) digital HR under Trade Facilitation, and (iv) sustainable maritime transport under Theoretical/Analytical Frameworks. The new references are marked in orange and fully listed in the References section.
Please see attached table for Location in Revised Manuscript
Thank you again for your time and efforts
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsAn importrant contribution to the broad study of competitiveness. Good combination of res.methods with policy suggestions. Clearly stated limits of the project.
It could perhaps be elaborated if and what political and institutional barrers and solutions to the well-defined hindrances to improve the position of J. How realistic it is to see the improvement? Furthermore, a short reflection on the implications of the ongoing war could be mentioned.
Author Response
Thank you for your constructive feedback. Below we provide point-by-point responses; all changes are reflected in the revised manuscript.
Comment 1: An important contribution to the broad study of competitiveness. Good combination of research methods with policy suggestions. Clearly stated limits of the project.
Response: We sincerely thank the reviewer for this positive assessment and their recognition of the study’s contribution, methodological design, and policy relevance.
Comment 2: It could perhaps be elaborated if and what political and institutional barriers and solutions to the well-defined hindrances to improve the position of Jordan. How realistic it is to see the improvement?
Response: We have expanded the Discussion (Section 5, after Table 9) to provide a reflection on the political and institutional challenges facing Jordan’s trade competitiveness. We noted that fragmented bureaucracies, slow regulatory processes, and weak inter-agency coordination limit Jordan’s ability to fully leverage its geostrategic position. We also outlined possible solutions, including institutional streamlining, greater transparency, and regional cooperation. In response to the reviewer’s suggestion, we briefly assess the realism of reforms, noting that modest gains are achievable in the near term while more transformative reforms will require sustained political will and external support.
Comment 3: Furthermore, a short reflection on the implications of the ongoing war could be mentioned.
Response: We added a short reflection in the Limitations section (Section 5.5) acknowledging how the ongoing regional conflict introduces new uncertainties for Jordan’s trade flows and port access. While our benchmarking analysis provides a structured evaluation, we recognized that geopolitical shocks, such as the war, may exacerbate existing vulnerabilities or delay the implementation of reforms. This addition ensures the study situates Jordan’s trade challenges within the current regional context.
Please see attached table for Location in Revised Manuscript
Thank you again for your time and efforts
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDONE
