Peer Review Policy
The Journal of responsible AI & ethics (JRAIE) follows a rigorous, transparent, and fair peer review process to ensure the highest standards of academic quality, integrity, and relevance in the field of AI ethics and responsible artificial intelligence.
Review Model
The journal adopts a double-blind peer review process, in which both authors and reviewers remain anonymous throughout the review process. This approach minimizes bias and ensures an objective evaluation of all submissions.
The journal does not allow authors to influence reviewer selection.
Initial Editorial Screening
All submitted manuscripts undergo an initial screening by the editorial team to assess:
- Relevance to the journal’s scope
- Originality and absence of plagiarism
- Compliance with submission guidelines
- Ethical considerations and research integrity
Manuscripts that do not meet these criteria may be rejected without external review.
Reviewer Assignment
Each manuscript is evaluated by at least two independent reviewers who are selected based on their expertise in the subject area. Reviewers are expected to provide objective, constructive, and timely feedback.
Evaluation Criteria
Reviewers assess manuscripts based on the following criteria:
- Originality and contribution to the field
- Scientific and methodological rigor
- Ethical compliance and integrity
- Clarity, structure, and quality of writing
- Relevance to AI ethics, governance, and responsible AI
Reviewer Responsibilities
Reviewers are expected to:
- Provide objective, constructive, and unbiased feedback
- Maintain confidentiality of all submitted materials
- Avoid using unpublished data for personal advantage
- Complete reviews within the agreed timeframe
- Inform the editor if they are unqualified or unable to review
Confidentiality
All manuscripts and associated materials are treated as confidential documents. Reviewers and editors must not disclose, share, or use any unpublished information for personal or professional advantage.
Conflict of Interest
Reviewers and editors must disclose any potential conflicts of interest (financial, institutional, personal, or collaborative) that could influence their evaluation. In such cases, they must recuse themselves from the review process to ensure impartiality.
Peer Review Integrity
The journal takes measures to ensure the integrity of the peer review process. This includes:
- Verification of reviewer identities
- Prevention of fake reviewer accounts or manipulation
- Editorial oversight at all stages of review
- Use of plagiarism detection tools
Any attempt to compromise the peer review process will result in rejection and may be reported to relevant authorities.
Editorial Decision
The Editor-in-Chief makes the final decision based on reviewer reports and editorial judgment. The possible decisions include:
- Accept
- Minor Revision
- Major Revision
- Reject
Editorial decisions are based solely on academic merit, originality, and relevance to the journal’s scope.
Review Timeline
The journal aims to provide an initial decision within 4–6 weeks of submission. The overall timeline may vary depending on the revision process and reviewer availability.
Revision Process
Authors are expected to respond to reviewer comments carefully and submit revised manuscripts within the specified timeframe. All revisions must clearly address reviewer feedback.
Appeals and Complaints
Authors have the right to appeal editorial decisions. Appeals and complaints should be submitted to:
All appeals are reviewed fairly and independently by the Editor-in-Chief or a designated senior editor.
Integrity and Quality Assurance
The journal uses plagiarism detection tools (such as Turnitin or iThenticate) and follows strict ethical standards throughout the review process. Any suspected misconduct is handled in accordance with established publication ethics guidelines.
