Peer Review Policy

The Journal of Responsible AI & Ethics (JRAIE) follows a rigorous, transparent, and independent double-blind peer-review process for evaluating manuscripts submitted for publication. Peer review is a fundamental component of the journal’s editorial workflow and supports the assessment of scholarly quality, originality, methodological soundness, ethical integrity, research relevance, clarity of presentation, and overall contribution to the field.

Under the double-blind peer-review model, the identities of authors and reviewers remain confidential throughout the review process. Reviewers do not have access to author-identifying information, and authors are not informed about reviewer identities. This approach supports impartial evaluation and reduces potential bias related to institutional affiliation, geographic location, professional reputation, gender, or other factors unrelated to academic quality.

Peer review assists editorial decision-making; however, reviewer recommendations are advisory in nature. The final decision regarding acceptance, revision, or rejection of manuscripts remains the responsibility of the Editor-in-Chief or designated handling editor, who evaluates reviewer comments, manuscript quality, ethical considerations, and journal policies.

Peer Review Model Summary

Review Model: Double-Blind Peer Review

Reviewer Identity: Reviewer identities remain confidential and are not disclosed to authors.

Author Identity: Author information is concealed from reviewers during the review process.

Number of Reviewers: Manuscripts are normally evaluated by at least two independent reviewers with relevant subject expertise.

Decision Authority: Final publication decisions are made by the Editor-in-Chief or designated handling editor.

Review Confidentiality: Manuscript content, reviewer reports, and editorial communications are treated as confidential scholarly information.

Initial Editorial Screening

All manuscripts submitted to JRAIE undergo an initial editorial assessment before being considered for external peer review.

During this stage, the editorial team evaluates whether the manuscript:

Aligns with the aims and scope of the journal.
Demonstrates originality and meaningful scholarly contribution.
Meets academic writing and submission requirements.
Presents an appropriate research design, theoretical framework, or analytical approach.
Clearly defines objectives, methodology, findings, and conclusions where applicable.
Includes necessary ethical declarations and research integrity statements.
Follows authorship, disclosure, and publication standards.

The journal may conduct plagiarism screening, ethical checks, technical evaluations, and other editorial assessments during this stage.

Manuscripts may be returned to authors for technical correction, clarification, or completion of missing information before external review. Submissions that are outside the journal scope, lack sufficient academic contribution, contain serious methodological weaknesses, or raise unresolved ethical concerns may be declined without external peer review.

Double-Blind Peer Review Process

Manuscripts that successfully complete the initial editorial assessment proceed to external double-blind peer review.

During the review process:

Reviewers do not receive author-identifying information.
Authors are not informed about reviewer identities.
Reviewer reports remain confidential.
Editorial correspondence related to the review process is handled securely.

Authors are requested to prepare manuscripts in a manner that protects anonymity by avoiding unnecessary identification through acknowledgements, institutional references, personal statements, or other information that may reveal author identity.

The journal takes reasonable measures to maintain reviewer and author confidentiality. However, complete anonymity cannot always be guaranteed because identities may occasionally be inferred through published work, datasets, research contexts, or specialised subject knowledge.

Number and Selection of Reviewers

Research manuscripts submitted to JRAIE are normally evaluated by at least two independent reviewers with expertise relevant to the manuscript topic.

Where reviewer recommendations differ substantially, the handling editor may request an additional independent review to support a balanced editorial decision.

Reviewer selection is based on:

Subject expertise relevant to the manuscript.
Academic and research experience.
Methodological competence.
Ability to provide independent and objective evaluation.
Appropriate publication experience in the relevant discipline.

The journal maintains a reviewer database consisting of qualified researchers and academic professionals from relevant fields, including responsible artificial intelligence, ethics, computer science, technology governance, social sciences, and interdisciplinary research areas.

Reviewer appointments are periodically evaluated to support appropriate expertise, diversity, independence, and the overall quality of peer-review activities.

Editors are responsible for selecting reviewers who can provide fair, unbiased, and academically meaningful evaluations. Reviewer suggestions provided by authors may be considered; however, the final responsibility for reviewer selection remains with the editorial team.

Peer Review Timeline

JRAIE aims to ensure an efficient and transparent review process while maintaining rigorous academic evaluation standards.

The journal generally follows the following timeline:

Initial editorial screening: approximately 2–3 weeks after submission.
External peer-review process: approximately 4–8 weeks depending on reviewer availability, manuscript complexity, and evaluation requirements.
Revision assessment: dependent on the extent of revisions requested and reviewer or editorial evaluation.

Actual processing times may vary due to factors including:

Reviewer availability.
Manuscript complexity.
Interdisciplinary evaluation requirements.
Need for additional expert opinions.
Ethical or methodological assessments.

The journal regularly monitors the review workflow to promote timely, transparent, and consistent editorial decisions.

Conflicts of Interest in Peer Review

Reviewers must disclose any relationship, professional connection, or interest that may influence or appear to influence their impartial evaluation.

Potential conflicts of interest may include:

Recent collaboration with manuscript authors.
Direct academic or professional competition.
Financial relationships.
Personal relationships.
Supervisory or mentoring relationships.
Institutional conflicts.

Reviewers with significant conflicts of interest are expected to decline the review invitation or inform the editor for appropriate assessment.

Editors must also avoid handling manuscripts where personal, professional, or financial interests may compromise editorial independence.

Review Criteria

Reviewers evaluate manuscripts according to scholarly and ethical standards. Depending on manuscript type, reviewers may consider:

Relevance to the journal’s aims and scope.
Originality and significance of the contribution.
Clarity of research objectives or conceptual arguments.
Appropriateness of methodology.
Quality of data, analysis, or theoretical reasoning.
Transparency and reproducibility.
Accuracy and reliability of findings.
Relationship between evidence and conclusions.
Engagement with relevant scholarly literature.
Ethical considerations.
Responsible AI implications where applicable.
Limitations and future research directions.
Overall academic contribution.

Reviewers are encouraged to distinguish between essential revisions required for scholarly improvement and optional recommendations.

Responsibilities of Reviewers

Reviewers are expected to conduct evaluations professionally, objectively, and respectfully.

Reviewers should:

Evaluate manuscripts independently and fairly.
Provide constructive and evidence-based feedback.
Identify methodological, theoretical, or ethical concerns.
Suggest improvements that enhance scholarly quality.
Maintain confidentiality throughout the review process.
Disclose potential conflicts of interest.
Avoid personal criticism or discriminatory comments.
Avoid inappropriate requests for citation manipulation.
Report suspected research misconduct or ethical concerns.

Reviewer comments should focus on manuscript content and quality rather than author identity, institution, nationality, or professional status.

Confidentiality in Peer Review

All manuscripts submitted for review are confidential scholarly documents.

Reviewers must not:

Share manuscript content with unauthorized individuals.
Discuss unpublished manuscripts publicly.
Use unpublished information for personal advantage.
Upload confidential manuscripts or review materials into systems that may compromise confidentiality.

Reviewer reports and editorial communications remain confidential unless disclosure is required by legitimate legal, ethical, or research-integrity procedures.

Use of Artificial Intelligence in Peer Review

Because submitted manuscripts may contain confidential, unpublished, proprietary, or sensitive information, reviewers and editors must exercise caution when using artificial intelligence tools during the review process.

Reviewers and editors must not upload confidential manuscript content, reviewer reports, unpublished datasets, or protected editorial materials into publicly available AI systems where confidentiality, privacy, intellectual-property protection, or data security cannot be assured.

Artificial intelligence tools must not replace independent expert judgment. Any use of AI-assisted tools must remain consistent with confidentiality requirements, ethical publishing practices, privacy protection, and research integrity principles.

Reviewer Evaluation and Quality Monitoring

JRAIE periodically evaluates the effectiveness and quality of its peer-review activities.

Reviewer performance may be assessed based on:

Quality and depth of review comments.
Timeliness of review completion.
Relevance and usefulness of recommendations.
Compliance with confidentiality requirements.
Adherence to ethical review standards.

Reviewers who consistently provide constructive and academically valuable evaluations may be considered for future review assignments.

Reviewer Recognition

JRAIE recognises the valuable contribution of peer reviewers who support the quality and integrity of scholarly communication.

The journal may provide appropriate recognition mechanisms, including reviewer acknowledgements or certificates, while maintaining confidentiality regarding individual review assignments.

Any reviewer recognition activity is conducted in accordance with ethical publishing standards and does not compromise reviewer anonymity.

Peer Review Process for Special Issues

Manuscripts submitted for special issues undergo the same rigorous peer-review standards applied to regular submissions.

Guest editors may coordinate aspects of the review process; however, final editorial responsibility remains with the Editor-in-Chief or designated editorial authority to ensure independence, consistency, and compliance with journal policies.

Editorial Decision

After receiving reviewer reports, the handling editor evaluates:

Reviewer recommendations.
Author responses.
Manuscript quality.
Ethical considerations.
Journal policies and standards.

Possible editorial decisions include:

Accept.
Minor Revision.
Major Revision.
Reject and Resubmit.
Reject.

Reviewer recommendations are advisory and do not automatically determine the final editorial decision.

Revision Process

When revisions are requested, authors should submit:

Revised manuscript.
Detailed response to reviewer comments.
Explanation of modifications made.

Revised manuscripts may be evaluated by:

Handling editor.
Original reviewers.
Additional reviewers.
Methodological or ethical experts where required.

Submission of a revised manuscript does not guarantee acceptance.

Appeals Against Editorial Decisions

Authors may submit an appeal if they believe that:

A significant procedural error occurred.
Important evidence was overlooked.
The decision was affected by factual misunderstanding.

Appeals must provide clear explanations and supporting evidence.

Disagreement with reviewer opinions alone is generally not considered sufficient grounds for appeal.

Integrity of the Peer-Review Process

JRAIE maintains a peer-review process based on:

Independence.
Confidentiality.
Impartiality.
Scholarly competence.
Procedural fairness.
Transparency.
Accountability.
Responsible editorial oversight.

The journal’s peer-review practices are informed by recognised principles of responsible scholarly publishing and relevant guidance developed by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).

Reference to COPE guidance reflects the journal’s commitment to responsible publishing practices and does not represent COPE membership or endorsement unless officially verified.

JRAIE may update this policy periodically to reflect developments in peer-review practices, publication ethics, artificial intelligence, research integrity, and scholarly communication standards.