Coherence Analysis of National Maritime Policy of Pakistan across Shipping Sector Governance Framework in the Context of Sustainability

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The article has clear research metholodogy consisting in principle, criteria and indicators framework for pair-wise analysis of governing instruments relevant for the national and international context of Pakistan's shipping sector, with focus on environmental and sustainable aspects. The research methodology includes a sound combination of both qualitative and quantitative tools and methods for data collection and analysis.

Coherence Matrix and Coherence Analysis have clear results.

Further scientific analysis is well envisioned.

The scientific article has a visionary topic and purpose, and I am confident it will contribute to the political, technical and societal improvement in Pakistan's National Maritime Policy once will be published.

I recommend minor revision for improvement in the use of English language.

Author Response

Kindly see attached file for reply to your comments.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

I congratulate the authors for their hard and original work. I didn't see any major problems other than my very minor suggestions.

Review Report for "Coherence Analysis of National Maritime Policy of Pakistan across Shipping Sector Governance Framework in the Context of Sustainability"

L38. In terms of money or weight?

L39. No need to say "Maritime sector" again, disrupts the flow. You may prefer "It".

L68. There is no need to open a 1.1 title. It can be numbered with the number 2. Because 1.1. is the expectation of 1.2. Or the title can be completely removed. Content can be presented in the "Introduction" without the need for a new title. Because the parts related to the contribution of the study are also in this section.

L78. Is this rate a monetary value? It should be specified.

L79. Pakistan is also one of the leading countries in the shipbreaking industry. This issue can also be mentioned.

L104. Shipbreaking is also very damaging to the environment.

L149. The flow can be strengthened by adding a few more sentences about the contribution of the study.

L340. Table heading spelling should be checked. What does i and ii mean? I couldn't see explanations.

L385. Please check the heading and all headings as well.

L391. Instead of going directly to the subtitle, a description of the next sections can be added under 3.2.

L441. A little more comment and explanation should be added about the radar figures.

L494. In the L78, you said 90%, but here 95%. Which should we base it on?

L694. If there is a limitation of the study, it should be stated that there is necessarily.

Author Response

Kindly see attached file for reply to your comments.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

It is very comprehensive and fruitful research. The maritime activities in Pakistan ports have been analyzed.
In Section 1, the authors need to state the overall contribution of the paper. Also, we recommend adding a paragraph about the paper structure. Figure 2 needs to be graphically improved. It is missing the application of the stated methodology in some other cases. Perhaps, the authors must include this in Section 5.  
However, in the last Section, further directions are to be reported in the sense of the position and importance of the blue economy term.

Author Response

Kindly see attached file for reply to your comments.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report

The authors have analysed the relationship of Pakistani state authorities with maritime conventions and laws in the context of sustainability and aimed to reveal the compliance of the Pakistani state with these conventions and laws.

The study is comprehensive and almost without any gaps in the subject. The only thing I can suggest regarding the scope of the subject is the mention of the Hong Kong Convention.

On the other hand, the general structure of the study is more like a national report than a scientific article. It may not be of much interest to the international readership whether the state of Pakistan is making progress in complying with international maritime conventions. Moreover, the methods and the findings of the study seem to be more of a case study rather than a scientific study. Since I believe that it would be more appropriate to submit the study to a national report publisher rather than a scientific journal, I think it would be appropriate to reject the study. 

Author Response

Kindly see attached file for reply to your comments.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 4 Report

What I said about the first version of the article is not contradictory statements. The fact that a text is 'complete' is necessary but not sufficient for it to be recognised as a scientific publication. One of the papers suggested by the authors as support for their own work was published in a journal outside the SCI and one of them is dated. As a reviewer, I am expected to comment in equal measure on the scope, quality and publishability of a manuscript, and while I still accept that the scope and quality of the manuscript are good, I maintain the view that it is more of a report than an article.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

We highly appreciate your efforts in devoting time to reviewing our manuscript. We are also grateful your endorsement regarding the scope and quality of work.

As far as your comment regarding publishability of our manuscript is concerned, we reiterate our argument submitted during round-1 review that the study employed a mix-method approach encompassing qualitative and quantitative techniques. Similar nature of works have been published in “Sustainability” as well as in other peer reviewed journals including SCI journals and related articles are well cited in the manuscript.

Further, we would like to submit that there are differences in opinions exist amongst various thought groups regarding different types of researches (i.e. empirical, theoretical etc.) and methodologies (qualitative, quantitative, observations through wet lab experiments etc.) used in applied policy-oriented research, social sciences and basic (hardcore) scientific disciplines. It is always difficult for one research group to understand the other methods and dynamics of the study, hence they always have questions about the actual content, methods and output vis-à-vis practical use of the study outcome. For instance, it is difficult for a Chemist to understand Policy Research and vice versa. However, the basic aim of all research studies is to contribute new knowledge and practical solutions in the available pool of literature.

It is pertinent to highlight that the topic of our research is dealing with policy coherence which is an integral and important instrument for applied research/assessment to target improvement in institutional governance mechanism, policies and processes in its aim thus it doesn’t come under the scope of hardcore lab oriented scientific research. Besides, we tend to differ with you that our work is not a paper. It is humbly submitted that all reviewers have endorsed originality, novelty and quality of the contents and we have prepared and presented our research output on IMRAD format which is widely practiced converting research outputs in paper form.

We hope that our humble clarification will be considered and accepted by you.