Exploration of Audit Technologies in Public Security Agencies: Empirical Research from Portugal
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsCorrections:
1. According to whom is the audit process described on the second and third pages?
2. See Line 293. Where did this picture come from? Is it the result of the author's own elaboration or does it refer to a model created by a previous author? when the scheme was created?
3. How were the interviewees selected in this paper? can the script of the interview material sent by the researcher to the interviewees via Google Form be sent to this review section?
Author Response
Response to the reviewer
General comments
Firstly, we extend our sincere gratitude for dedicating your time to offering valuable recommendations. We are confident that your revision have enhanced the paper on multiple ways. Therefore, we hope that you will find the revised version to represent a more robust contribution. To enable understanding of the revisions incorporated into our manuscript, we have opted to denote them using the color blue in the manuscript.
We have taken the revision very seriously. If you find that our revisions are not satisfactory, we are entirely available to reformulate accordingly. The following paragraphs address your detailed recommendations.
Reviewer 1
Reviewer point #1: According to whom is the audit process described on the second and third pages?
Author response #1: As part of the study, we created a scenario to simulate the audit process. The description on pages two and three was initially based on the institution's audit process but presented without direct reference to avoid explicitly identifying the institution. However, to enhance transparency and rigor, we have now included the proper reference to the institution's audit process while maintaining the integrity of the study.
Reviewer point #2: See Line 293. Where did this picture come from? Is it the result of the author's own elaboration or does it refer to a model created by a previous author? when the scheme was created?
Author response #2: Thank you for your comment. The figure was created by the authors during the course of the research. Moreover, the figure is grounded in the results, with the intention of improving the understanding of the key indicators. We have added this information in lines 313 and 314.
Reviewer point #3: How were the interviewees selected in this paper? can the script of the interview material sent by the researcher to the interviewees via Google Form be sent to this review section?
Author response #3: Thank you for your observation. The script of the interview, which was shared with participants via Google Forms, has been included as an appendix to provide full transparency. However, if the reviewer believes it would be more effective, we can incorporate selected questions and corresponding responses directly into the article to provide additional evidence.
The authors,
January, 2025
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors1. The article covers an aspect of improving auditing practices in public security agency so, the introduction should start talking about it instead of elaborating on AI. At the tail end mention the proposition of AI/Python to enhance auditing processes.
2. The literatures on Public Security Agencies should be further explored. What is the current status of auditing this agency and tools?
3. International Public Sector Accounting Standards (IPSAS) ought to be cited.
4. Line 67-68. Maybe the authors would like to say “……ascertaining that internal control is established through measures designed to mitigate risks.
5. Line 69. Kindly verify if this is a direct citation from Yin (2018) or rewrite as an indirect citation.
6. Line 90. Noteworthy that apart from enhancement of transparency and efficiency of systems the auditing of public agency could toe the concern of certifying Legality of transactions and compliance. Authors are advised to draw from the IPSAS.
7. Maybe authors would consider changing the theme of the article to include “Technology “ Say: Improving auditing practices technologies in Public Security Agencies: An empirical research from Portugal.
8. Line 230-232. One respondent was unfamiliar with the concepts of AI and did not provide input. Which category of respondents. Stipulate. Is it associated with the issue of lack of training?
9. Line 210-232. In analysis of AI Integration, it is not clear how AI document analysis and record confirmation were run. Kindly throw more light.
10. Overall, there are processes which are currently performed manually. What is your contribution (roadmaps) as to migrating to automated processing, particularly adopting AI in public sector agencies.
Author Response
Response to the reviewer
General comments
Firstly, we extend our sincere gratitude for dedicating your time to offering valuable recommendations. We are confident that your revision have enhanced the paper on multiple ways. Therefore, we hope that you will find the revised version to represent a more robust contribution. To enable understanding of the revisions incorporated into our manuscript, we have opted to denote them using the color blue in the manuscript.
We have taken the revision very seriously. If you find that our revisions are not satisfactory, we are entirely available to reformulate accordingly. The following paragraphs address your detailed recommendations.
Reviewer 2
Reviewer point #1: The article covers an aspect of improving auditing practices in public security agency so, the introduction should start talking about it instead of elaborating on AI. At the tail end mention the proposition of AI/Python to enhance auditing processes.
Author response #1: We followed your suggestion. In response, we have revised the introduction to incorporate the concept of "algorithm-based applications", with the explanation regarding Python placed in Section 3.4 of the article, which we believe to be the most appropriate section for this discussion.
Reviewer point #2: The literatures on Public Security Agencies should be further explored. What is the current status of auditing this agency and tools?
Author response #2: Thank you very much for your comment. We have added a paragraph explaining the current state of the auditing process within the agency, highlighting that while the process remains time-consuming and primarily manual, it has already transitioned to a digital format. Although advanced data analysis tools have not yet been implemented, the digitalization of the process has laid a solid foundation for the integration of algorithmic applications.
Reviewer point #3: International Public Sector Accounting Standards (IPSAS) ought to be cited.
Author response #3: We followed your suggestion, much appreciated.
Reviewer point #4: Line 67-68. Maybe the authors would like to say “……ascertaining that internal control is established through measures designed to mitigate risks.
Author response #4: We followed your suggestion, much appreciated.
Reviewer point #5: Line 69. Kindly verify if this is a direct citation from Yin (2018) or rewrite as an indirect citation.
Author response #5: Thank you for your observation. The sentence has been revised to reflect an indirect citation of Yin (2018).
Reviewer point #6: Line 90. Noteworthy that apart from enhancement of transparency and efficiency of systems the auditing of public agency could toe the concern of certifying Legality of transactions and compliance. Authors are advised to draw from the IPSAS.
Author response #6: We followed your advice, much appreciated.
Reviewer point #7: Maybe authors would consider changing the theme of the article to include “Technology” Say: Improving auditing practices technologies in Public Security Agencies: An empirical research from Portugal.
Author response #7: We have adopted a new appropriate title: "Audit Technologies Exploration in Public Security Agencies: An Empirical Research from Portugal". However, we are open to making further changes if necessary.
Reviewer point #8: Line 230-232. One respondent was unfamiliar with the concepts of AI and did not provide input. Which category of respondents. Stipulate. Is it associated with the issue of lack of training?
Author response #8: Thank you for your comment. We have incorporated the requested clarification into the manuscript. The respondent in question belongs to the Sergeant category, with less than one year of experience in auditing, which may reflect the issue of limited training.
Reviewer point #9: Line 210-232. In analysis of AI Integration, it is not clear how AI document analysis and record confirmation were run. Kindly throw more light.
Author response #9: Thank you for your feedback. The primary objective of the section 3.2., particularly document analysis and record confirmation, is to emphasize the key indicators identified by the interviewees as being most relevant to the auditing process. The detailed exploration of these key indicators is further developed in sections 3.4. and 3.5., where the specific applications of AI are thoroughly examined. To address the point raised, we have enhanced section 3.2. to provide a clearer bridge to these subsections, ensuring that the progression from the identification of key indicators to their detailed exploration is more comprehensible.
Reviewer point #10: Overall, there are processes which are currently performed manually. What is your contribution (roadmaps) as to migrating to automated processing, particularly adopting AI in public sector agencies.
Author response #10: Thank you for your observation. We have enhanced section 4.1. to provide a clearer focus on the contributions towards the adoption of AI in public sector agencies. This revision emphasizes the importance of transitioning from manual processes to automated systems, outlining contributions for the effective implementation of AI in auditing.
The authors,
January, 2025
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsNo additional concerns at this moment. Maybe authors would consider including the word "Auditing technologies" in the Keywords.
