Peer Review Form

The Journal of Responsible AI & Ethics (JRAIE) follows a structured double-blind peer-review process designed to support objective, independent, and constructive scholarly evaluation. The purpose of the peer-review process is to assess the academic quality, originality, methodological soundness, ethical integrity, relevance, and overall contribution of manuscripts submitted to the journal.

Reviewers are expected to provide a careful and evidence-based assessment of each manuscript. Review reports should identify the principal strengths of the submission, areas requiring clarification or revision, methodological or conceptual limitations, and any concerns that may affect the reliability or integrity of the work.

Reviewer comments should be professional, specific, respectful, and sufficiently detailed to assist both the authors in improving their manuscript and the editors in making an informed editorial decision.

Reviewer Responsibilities

Reviewers play an important role in maintaining the quality and integrity of scholarly publishing. A reviewer should accept a manuscript for evaluation only when the subject matter falls reasonably within the reviewer’s area of expertise and when the review can be completed within the requested period.

Reviewers are expected to assess manuscripts impartially and without discrimination. Evaluation should be based on scholarly merit, methodological quality, logical consistency, originality, relevance to the journal’s aims and scope, and the extent to which the conclusions are supported by the evidence or analysis presented.

Personal criticism of authors is inappropriate. Reviewer comments should focus on the content and academic quality of the manuscript.

Confidentiality

All manuscripts submitted for peer review must be treated as confidential scholarly documents.

Reviewers must not disclose, reproduce, distribute, discuss, or share the manuscript or its unpublished contents with individuals who are not directly involved in the authorized editorial process. Information obtained through peer review must not be used for personal, academic, professional, financial, or commercial advantage.

Reviewers should also avoid uploading confidential manuscripts, unpublished datasets, identifiable research information, or reviewer reports to external artificial-intelligence systems or third-party platforms where confidentiality, intellectual-property protection, or data security cannot be assured.

Conflict of Interest

Reviewers should disclose any financial, professional, institutional, academic, personal, or other relationship that could reasonably influence, or appear to influence, their evaluation of the manuscript.

Where a conflict of interest may compromise the independence of the review, the reviewer should decline the review invitation or inform the handling editor without delay.

The journal expects reviewers to provide independent assessments free from inappropriate influence, personal interest, institutional competition, or other considerations unrelated to the academic quality of the submission.

Reviewer Information

Reviewer Name: __________________________________________

Academic/Professional Designation: __________________________

Department/Discipline: _____________________________________

Institution/Affiliation: ______________________________________

Country: _________________________________________________

Email Address: ____________________________________________

ORCID, if available: ________________________________________

Area of Expertise: __________________________________________

Reviewer identity is maintained confidentially by the editorial office in accordance with the journal’s double-blind peer-review model.

Manuscript Information

Manuscript ID: _____________________________________________

Manuscript Title: ___________________________________________

Article Type: ______________________________________________

Date Review Assigned: ______________________________________

Date Review Completed: _____________________________________

Conflict of Interest Declaration

Please indicate the appropriate statement:

I have no known competing interest that would prevent me from providing an independent and impartial review.
I may have a potential competing interest and have disclosed the relevant information to the editor.
I believe that a conflict of interest may prevent an independent evaluation and request withdrawal from this review assignment.

Details, if applicable:

Manuscript Evaluation

Please assess the manuscript using the following scale:

Evaluation Criterion	Rating
Relevance to the aims and scope of JRAIE
Originality of the manuscript
Significance of the research problem
Clarity of the research objectives or questions
Adequacy of the literature review
Appropriateness of the theoretical or conceptual framework
Suitability of the research design
Quality and transparency of the methodology
Adequacy of the dataset, evidence, or analytical material
Appropriateness of statistical or computational methods, where applicable
Clarity and accuracy of the results
Strength of the interpretation of findings
Consistency between objectives, results, and conclusions
Quality of the discussion
Relevance of references
Consideration of responsible-AI principles
Consideration of ethical, legal, or societal implications
Clarity of academic writing
Organization and logical structure
Overall scholarly contribution

Originality and Scholarly Contribution

Please evaluate whether the manuscript offers a clear and meaningful contribution to the existing body of knowledge.

The reviewer should consider whether the study introduces a new theoretical perspective, methodological approach, empirical finding, analytical framework, governance model, policy interpretation, technical contribution, or interdisciplinary insight relevant to responsible artificial intelligence and ethics.

The manuscript should demonstrate sufficient engagement with existing scholarship and clearly explain how the study extends, challenges, refines, or applies previous knowledge.

Reviewer Comments:

Research Objectives and Conceptual Clarity

Please assess whether the research problem, objectives, hypotheses, or research questions are stated clearly and are logically connected to the study design.

Where a theoretical or conceptual framework is used, please comment on its relevance, clarity, and consistency with the research problem.

The reviewer should also identify any conceptual ambiguity, unsupported assumption, or unclear terminology that may affect the interpretation of the study.

Reviewer Comments:

Methodology and Research Design

Please evaluate whether the research methods are suitable for addressing the stated objectives or research questions.

Consider, where applicable, the study design, sampling strategy, dataset characteristics, data-collection procedures, computational methods, statistical analysis, experimental design, modeling approach, validation procedures, qualitative methods, or theoretical methodology.

The reviewer should assess whether sufficient methodological information has been provided to allow readers to understand how the study was conducted and, where relevant, to support reproducibility or independent evaluation.

Please also comment on whether methodological limitations have been acknowledged appropriately.

Reviewer Comments:

Results and Analysis

Please assess whether the results are presented clearly, accurately, and in a manner consistent with the methods described.

Tables, graphs, statistical analyses, computational outputs, qualitative findings, or other forms of evidence should be appropriate, clearly labeled, and directly relevant to the study objectives.

The reviewer should identify any unsupported interpretation, inconsistency between reported results and analysis, insufficient statistical or methodological justification, or important result that requires additional explanation.

Reviewer Comments:

Discussion and Interpretation

Please evaluate whether the discussion provides a balanced and academically sound interpretation of the findings.

The manuscript should explain the significance of the results, relate them to relevant previous scholarship, acknowledge important limitations, and avoid conclusions that extend beyond the available evidence.

Where results differ from previous research, the authors should provide a reasonable scholarly explanation.

Reviewer Comments:

Responsible AI and Ethical Considerations

Given the scope of JRAIE, reviewers are encouraged to consider whether the manuscript appropriately addresses relevant dimensions of responsible artificial intelligence.

Depending on the subject of the manuscript, these may include:

Fairness and algorithmic discrimination
Transparency and explainability
Accountability and responsibility
Human oversight and meaningful human control
Data privacy and responsible data governance
AI safety and reliability
Security and potential misuse
Accessibility and inclusion
Social and institutional consequences
Regulatory and legal implications
Risks to individuals, communities, or vulnerable populations
Ethical implications of automated decision-making
Environmental or sustainability implications of AI systems

Not every manuscript is expected to address all of these areas. Reviewers should assess only those considerations that are relevant to the research question and study context.

Reviewer Comments:

Research Ethics and Integrity

Where applicable, please assess whether the manuscript provides appropriate information concerning research ethics.

For studies involving human participants, personal or sensitive data, interviews, surveys, clinical or behavioral research, or other activities requiring ethical oversight, the manuscript should provide relevant information regarding ethical approval, informed consent, privacy, confidentiality, and applicable safeguards.

Reviewers should confidentially inform the editor if they identify concerns relating to plagiarism, fabrication, falsification, inappropriate data manipulation, duplicate publication, citation manipulation, undisclosed conflicts of interest, authorship irregularities, or other potential breaches of research integrity.

Reviewers should report concerns objectively and should avoid making unsupported allegations.

Reviewer Comments:

References and Scholarly Context

Please evaluate whether the references are relevant, sufficiently comprehensive, and appropriately connected to the research problem.

The reviewer should consider whether important prior scholarship has been overlooked, whether excessive or irrelevant citations are present, and whether references appear to be used appropriately to support the manuscript’s arguments.

Reviewers should not recommend citations to their own work unless those references are genuinely relevant and necessary for improving the scholarly context of the manuscript.

Reviewer Comments:

Academic Writing and Presentation

Please assess whether the manuscript is presented in clear, professional academic English.

The organization of sections should be logical, terminology should be used consistently, and arguments should be presented in a coherent manner.

Where language or presentation problems materially affect comprehension, reviewers should identify the relevant areas and recommend appropriate revision.

Reviewer Comments:

Major Strengths of the Manuscript

Please identify the principal strengths of the submission.

Comments:

Major Issues Requiring Revision

Please identify the most important issues that should be addressed before the manuscript can be considered further.

Comments:

Minor Comments and Editorial Suggestions

Please provide any additional recommendations concerning clarity, terminology, presentation, references, tables, graphs, formatting, or minor corrections.

Comments:

Comments to the Author

Please provide a clear and constructive summary of your evaluation for the author.

Comments should distinguish between essential revisions and optional recommendations and should explain the reasoning behind major requests for revision.

Comments to the Author:

Confidential Comments to the Editor

This section is intended exclusively for communication between the reviewer and the editorial office.

Please use this section for confidential observations concerning research integrity, ethical concerns, conflicts of interest, authorship issues, potential misconduct, or other matters that should not initially be communicated directly to the author.

Confidential Comments:

Overall Recommendation

Please select one recommendation:

Accept
Minor Revision
Major Revision
Reject

The recommendation should correspond with the substantive comments provided in the review report.

Reviewer recommendations inform the editorial process but do not constitute the final publication decision. The final editorial decision is made by the authorized editor after considering reviewer reports, the manuscript’s scholarly quality, ethical requirements, and its relevance to the journal.

Reviewer Declaration

By submitting this review, I confirm that:

I have reviewed the manuscript independently and impartially.
I have disclosed any relevant competing interests.
I have maintained the confidentiality of the manuscript and associated review materials.
I have not used unpublished information obtained through the review process for personal, professional, or commercial advantage.
My assessment is based on scholarly considerations relevant to the manuscript.
My comments are constructive, professional, and respectful.
I have informed the editor of any significant ethical or research-integrity concerns identified during the review.
I understand that the final editorial decision remains the responsibility of the journal’s authorized editor.