Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue

Article Menu

Share Help Cite Discuss in SciProfiles

Open AccessArticle

Peer-Review Record

The Principle of Shared Utilization of Benefits Applied to the Development of Artificial Intelligence

Philosophies 2025, 10(4), 87; https://doi.org/10.3390/philosophies10040087

by Camilo Vargas-Machado^† and Andrés Roncancio Bedoya^*,†

Reviewer 1: Anonymous

Reviewer 2:

Thaddeus Martin

Reviewer 3: Anonymous

Philosophies 2025, 10(4), 87; https://doi.org/10.3390/philosophies10040087

Submission received: 5 May 2025 / Revised: 7 July 2025 / Accepted: 8 July 2025 / Published: 5 August 2025

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Hey folks,

I dived into your paper “The Principle of Benefit-Sharing Applied to the Development of AI.” Cool topic, specially for Global-South justice. But right now the manuscript feels more like a manifesto than a tight study. Here’s my blunt checklist:

Show the work, not just the talk. You label the study “qualitative content analysis,” yet we never see the coding frame, sample documents, or inter-coder notes. Pop the protocol & maybe an annex with the six emergent categories so others can replicate it. Without that it’s hand-wavy .
Trim the fat. Text runs >10 000 words and repeats chunks (sections 2, 3 & 5 echo each other). Kill dups, move the long geopolitical digressions to an Appendix.
...definitions....Terms like “digital colonialism”, “algorithmic sovereignty”, “co-responsibility” appear but never get a crisp 1-liner. A tiny glossary would help newbies.
Need concrete cases, and claim that benefit-sharing would reverse AI gaps, but no real-world example / sim / policy pilot is offered. Even a mini-case (e.g., India’s data-sharing mandate) would ground the thesis.
Only one table (Rawls, Sen, etc.) exists; a simple schema diagram of how the six pillars link to AI governance would visualise the logic .
I spotted duplicated links and odd capitalisation (see refs [21] & [22] same Shiva book). Fix years (e.g. 2025 papers cited as 2024?), and add some 2024-25 UNESCO / OECD AI-governance docs.
English mostly clear but watch typos: “inngovators”, “criterias”, “benefi-c sharing”. Also verbs slip tense (present/past) mid-sentence.
Benefit-sharing has been floated in AI-ethics circles for a while; your angle is Global-South centric, which is nice, but it scores ~2/5 on the shiny-new meter.

Fixing the method transparency and compressing the prose would push the piece towards publishable. Otherwise maybe recast as a Perspective rather than full Article.

Hope this helps—cheers!

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The paper is mostly readable, but the prose gets heavy. Sentences sometimes run on for half a page, verbs jump tenses mid-stream, and a handful of typos keep popping up (e.g., “benefi-sharing,” “criterias,” “inngovators”). I’d recommend a full proof-read by a native speaker or a language service: trim the longer sentences, fix the verb tense shifts, and watch for duplicated words. Once polished, the ideas will shine clearer.

Author Response

Dear Sir,

Reviewer

Philosophies Journal

Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing InstituteEditorial Team

Subject: Submission of corrections to manuscript philosophies-3654690

Dear member of the Philosophies editorial team,

Please accept our cordial greetings.

We hereby inform you that we have successfully completed the review process for the manuscript number philosophies-3654690, entitled:

"The Principle of Benefit-Sharing Applied to the Development of Artificial Intelligence."

All comments and suggestions have been carefully addressed, and the document has been fully corrected. Furthermore, the English language has been verified and edited with the assistance of a native speaker to meet the journal's quality standards. These corrections can be detailed as follows:

Nº	Comment	Action developed
1	The study seemed like an ideological manifesto; it required a complete coding framework to demonstrate methodological rigor and the feasibility of adequate replication.	The complete coding framework was incorporated, demonstrating replicability and methodological rigor for the reviewers. Two figures with relevant information were also included.
2	Sample documents and intercoder notes demonstrating analytical consistency were lacking; samples should be provided to reinforce the article's procedural transparency for readers.	Sample documents and intercoder notes were added in a detailed annex that made the analytical process transparent.
3	The manuscript exceeded ten thousand words and contained extensive repetition; its length had to be reduced to ensure argumentative focus and sustained scientific readability for reviewers.	The length was reduced to 8,528 words (excluding references), eliminating repetitions and improving argumentative fluency.
4	Subsection 3.2 cited sources without critical analysis; rewording it would provide thoughtful depth and theoretical coherence essential to the debate.	Subsection 3.2 was rewritten with extensive critical analysis and cross-references.
5	Scattered geopolitical digressions interrupted the thread of the discourse; concentrating them in an appendix would facilitate focused reading and a refined academic structure for the target audience.	All the geopolitical digressions were reorganized and adjusted.
6	The absence of a glossary left key terms ambiguous; incorporating concise definitions would strengthen conceptual accessibility for interdisciplinary researchers and non-expert readers.	A glossary was developed and presented as a Note at the end of the document, with seven key terms.
7	The Global South concept lacked territorial delimitation; clarifying its scope, including a possible Australian reference, would avoid contradictory geographical interpretations within the text itself.	The geographic scope of the Global South was clarified and incorporated into the Note. National exclusions and inclusions were also specified.
8	The proposal was to close gaps without evidence; adding real-life or pilot cases would strengthen the empirical argument for shared benefits in AI.	Empirical case studies were added, including the Indian data-sharing initiative.
9	The table of authors and pillars was insufficient; an infographic redesign clarified connections between emerging categories and algorithmic AI governance.	Table 1 was transformed into Figure 2, showing links between the 6 emerging categories and the coding.
10	Referencias contenían duplicados y años erróneos (Shiva); depuración bibliográfica y actualización normativa UNESCO/OCDE garantizaron fidelidad documental para la versión final publicada.	The reference list was refined and thoroughly reviewed. Duplicates were also corrected and UNESCO-OECD 2024-2025 documents were updated.
11	Arguments regarding binding force were lacking; the adaptation of Asilomar principles within the proposed international legal framework for regulating algorithms was explained.	The adaptation of the Asilomar principles within the proposed legal framework was explained, giving them practical validity.
12	Non-binding Asilomar principles needed to be linked to public policy; the new wording justified the transition to concrete multilateral obligations for global governance.	A proposal for a global regulatory architecture with treaties, committees, and enforcement mechanisms was incorporated.
13	The English version contained three typos; linguistic revision corrected anomalous typographical errors and improved lexical precision without altering the content of the final manuscript.	All English typos detected have been corrected through professional native speaker review.
14	Temporal inconsistencies in verbs caused confusion; narrative harmonization consolidated a uniform and coherent style throughout the entire text in the revised version.	The past tense was standardized for most of the document, and the past tense for the methodology, ensuring stylistic consistency throughout the manuscript.
15	The choice of authors was not clarified; justification for the bibliographic selection would demonstrate rigorous critical review and transparent inclusion/exclusion criteria.	The bibliographic selection was justified, describing inclusion and exclusion criteria in the methodological section, which is detailed in Figure 2.
16	An analysis of the principle addressed was missing, which is essential to validate its normative contribution in algorithmic bioethics.	Added expanded analysis.
17	Ideas for proposed solutions were cited without contrast; contextualizing debates would enrich comparative discussion with relevant authors and divergent perspectives.	Contrasting paragraphs were drafted, discussing proposals by Floridi, Sen, and Hinkelammert, with context and detail.
18	The manuscript required a complete rewrite to transform a superficial revision into a compelling and in-depth theoretical argument.	The entire text was rewritten to enhance its theoretical density and coherence.

We appreciate the editorial support provided throughout the process and reiterate our interest in continuing to publish this article in your prestigious journal.

We look forward to any additional requests.

Sincerely,

the authors

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The background research done in this paper is excellent. The paper provides an exhaustive analysis of AI-oriented issues affecting economic and political equity. The analysis is detailed and impeccable.

I have to wonder if such items as the Asilomar AI principles, being non-binding, will be adequate. The author clearly calls out the need for a global legal architecture that would structure government regulation of the design and use of AI to avoid digital colonialism.

In all, this paper and its list of references should be required reading for philosophers and technologists, focusing power and specifically on AI. I feel more informed and articulate on these issues for having read it.

Author Response

Dear Sir,

Journal of Philosophies

Editorial Team of the Multidisciplinary Institute of Digital Publications

Subject: Submission of corrections to manuscript philosophies-3654690

Dear member of the Philosophies editorial team,

Please accept our cordial greetings.

We hereby inform you that we have successfully completed the review process for the manuscript number philosophies-3654690, entitled:

"The Principle of Benefit-Sharing Applied to the Development of Artificial Intelligence."

Nº	Comment	Action developed
1	The study seemed like an ideological manifesto; it required a complete coding framework to demonstrate methodological rigor and the feasibility of adequate replication.	The complete coding framework was incorporated, demonstrating replicability and methodological rigor for the reviewers. Two figures with relevant information were also included.
2	Sample documents and intercoder notes demonstrating analytical consistency were lacking; samples should be provided to reinforce the article's procedural transparency for readers.	Sample documents and intercoder notes were added in a detailed annex that made the analytical process transparent.
3	The manuscript exceeded ten thousand words and contained extensive repetition; its length had to be reduced to ensure argumentative focus and sustained scientific readability for reviewers.	The length was reduced to 8,528 words (excluding references), eliminating repetitions and improving argumentative fluency.
4	Subsection 3.2 cited sources without critical analysis; rewording it would provide thoughtful depth and theoretical coherence essential to the debate.	Subsection 3.2 was rewritten with extensive critical analysis and cross-references.
5	Scattered geopolitical digressions interrupted the thread of the discourse; concentrating them in an appendix would facilitate focused reading and a refined academic structure for the target audience.	All the geopolitical digressions were reorganized and adjusted.
6	The absence of a glossary left key terms ambiguous; incorporating concise definitions would strengthen conceptual accessibility for interdisciplinary researchers and non-expert readers.	A glossary was developed and presented as a Note at the end of the document, with seven key terms.
7	The Global South concept lacked territorial delimitation; clarifying its scope, including a possible Australian reference, would avoid contradictory geographical interpretations within the text itself.	The geographic scope of the Global South was clarified and incorporated into the Note. National exclusions and inclusions were also specified.
8	The proposal was to close gaps without evidence; adding real-life or pilot cases would strengthen the empirical argument for shared benefits in AI.	Empirical case studies were added, including the Indian data-sharing initiative.
9	The table of authors and pillars was insufficient; an infographic redesign clarified connections between emerging categories and algorithmic AI governance.	Table 1 was transformed into Figure 2, showing links between the 6 emerging categories and the coding.
10	Referencias contenían duplicados y años erróneos (Shiva); depuración bibliográfica y actualización normativa UNESCO/OCDE garantizaron fidelidad documental para la versión final publicada.	The reference list was refined and thoroughly reviewed. Duplicates were also corrected and UNESCO-OECD 2024-2025 documents were updated.
11	Arguments regarding binding force were lacking; the adaptation of Asilomar principles within the proposed international legal framework for regulating algorithms was explained.	The adaptation of the Asilomar principles within the proposed legal framework was explained, giving them practical validity.
12	Non-binding Asilomar principles needed to be linked to public policy; the new wording justified the transition to concrete multilateral obligations for global governance.	A proposal for a global regulatory architecture with treaties, committees, and enforcement mechanisms was incorporated.
13	The English version contained three typos; linguistic revision corrected anomalous typographical errors and improved lexical precision without altering the content of the final manuscript.	All English typos detected have been corrected through professional native speaker review.
14	Temporal inconsistencies in verbs caused confusion; narrative harmonization consolidated a uniform and coherent style throughout the entire text in the revised version.	The past tense was standardized for most of the document, and the past tense for the methodology, ensuring stylistic consistency throughout the manuscript.
15	The choice of authors was not clarified; justification for the bibliographic selection would demonstrate rigorous critical review and transparent inclusion/exclusion criteria.	The bibliographic selection was justified, describing inclusion and exclusion criteria in the methodological section, which is detailed in Figure 2.
16	An analysis of the principle addressed was missing, which is essential to validate its normative contribution in algorithmic bioethics.	Added expanded analysis.
17	Ideas for proposed solutions were cited without contrast; contextualizing debates would enrich comparative discussion with relevant authors and divergent perspectives.	Contrasting paragraphs were drafted, discussing proposals by Floridi, Sen, and Hinkelammert, with context and detail.
18	The manuscript required a complete rewrite to transform a superficial revision into a compelling and in-depth theoretical argument.	The entire text was rewritten to enhance its theoretical density and coherence.

We appreciate the editorial support provided throughout the process and reiterate our interest in continuing to publish this article in your prestigious journal.

We welcome any additional requests.

Sincerely,

the authors

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The reviewed paper has the potential to become very strong and profound philosophical text. The problem is, that it seems that this potential was barely explored.

It contains an interesting approach, to some extent empirical, based on the texts and the elaboration of key repetitions of ideas (relating to participation in the benefits of AI) within them.
However, it is not very clear why presented positions, authors and texts or takes have been chosen. The entire introductory section (Introduction) contains a collection of various proclamations made by the selected authors. What is missing here is even a mention of other possible approaches to the issue. This situation makes the text more a kind of “embedded manifesto” than a critical review of the literature. There is a lack of critical elaboration (taking into account strengths and weaknesses) of the bioethical principle of fair benefit-sharing central to the work.

There is a lack of clarification - e.g. does the term “Global South” also refer to Australia? If Philosophies provides a platform for the exchange of philosophical thought, the reviewed work seems to have little to do with philosophy. It would fall more into some intermediate category, between quantitative research in cultural and linguistic studies and economics, and some elements of ethical insights. What is sometimes missing, so characteristic of philosophy, is a critical presentation of the ideas of the main components of the proposed solutions to the problems under discussion. The section on reflections (3.2) is essentially in the nature of citing further sources, and one does not really see any in-depth analysis of the problematic.

Ultimately, I believe that the work should be thoroughly rewritten in order to become more philosophical in character and then its publication can be reconsidered.

Author Response

Dear Sir,

Reviewer

Journal of Philosophies

Editorial Team of the Multidisciplinary Institute of Digital Publications

Subject: Submission of corrections to manuscript philosophies-3654690

Dear member of the Philosophies editorial team,

Please accept our cordial greetings.

We hereby inform you that we have successfully completed the review process for the manuscript number philosophies-3654690, entitled: "The Principle of Benefit-Sharing Applied to the Development of Artificial Intelligence."

Nº	Comment	Action developed
1	The study seemed like an ideological manifesto; it required a complete coding framework to demonstrate methodological rigor and the feasibility of adequate replication.	The complete coding framework was incorporated, demonstrating replicability and methodological rigor for the reviewers. Two figures with relevant information were also included.
2	Sample documents and intercoder notes demonstrating analytical consistency were lacking; samples should be provided to reinforce the article's procedural transparency for readers.	Sample documents and intercoder notes were added in a detailed annex that made the analytical process transparent.
3	The manuscript exceeded ten thousand words and contained extensive repetition; its length had to be reduced to ensure argumentative focus and sustained scientific readability for reviewers.	The length was reduced to 8,528 words (excluding references), eliminating repetitions and improving argumentative fluency.
4	Subsection 3.2 cited sources without critical analysis; rewording it would provide thoughtful depth and theoretical coherence essential to the debate.	Subsection 3.2 was rewritten with extensive critical analysis and cross-references.
5	Scattered geopolitical digressions interrupted the thread of the discourse; concentrating them in an appendix would facilitate focused reading and a refined academic structure for the target audience.	All the geopolitical digressions were reorganized and adjusted.
6	The absence of a glossary left key terms ambiguous; incorporating concise definitions would strengthen conceptual accessibility for interdisciplinary researchers and non-expert readers.	A glossary was developed and presented as a Note at the end of the document, with seven key terms.
7	The Global South concept lacked territorial delimitation; clarifying its scope, including a possible Australian reference, would avoid contradictory geographical interpretations within the text itself.	The geographic scope of the Global South was clarified and incorporated into the Note. National exclusions and inclusions were also specified.
8	The proposal was to close gaps without evidence; adding real-life or pilot cases would strengthen the empirical argument for shared benefits in AI.	Empirical case studies were added, including the Indian data-sharing initiative.
9	The table of authors and pillars was insufficient; an infographic redesign clarified connections between emerging categories and algorithmic AI governance.	Table 1 was transformed into Figure 2, showing links between the 6 emerging categories and the coding.
10	Referencias contenían duplicados y años erróneos (Shiva); depuración bibliográfica y actualización normativa UNESCO/OCDE garantizaron fidelidad documental para la versión final publicada.	The reference list was refined and thoroughly reviewed. Duplicates were also corrected and UNESCO-OECD 2024-2025 documents were updated.
11	Arguments regarding binding force were lacking; the adaptation of Asilomar principles within the proposed international legal framework for regulating algorithms was explained.	The adaptation of the Asilomar principles within the proposed legal framework was explained, giving them practical validity.
12	Non-binding Asilomar principles needed to be linked to public policy; the new wording justified the transition to concrete multilateral obligations for global governance.	A proposal for a global regulatory architecture with treaties, committees, and enforcement mechanisms was incorporated.
13	The English version contained three typos; linguistic revision corrected anomalous typographical errors and improved lexical precision without altering the content of the final manuscript.	All English typos detected have been corrected through professional native speaker review.
14	Temporal inconsistencies in verbs caused confusion; narrative harmonization consolidated a uniform and coherent style throughout the entire text in the revised version.	The past tense was standardized for most of the document, and the past tense for the methodology, ensuring stylistic consistency throughout the manuscript.
15	The choice of authors was not clarified; justification for the bibliographic selection would demonstrate rigorous critical review and transparent inclusion/exclusion criteria.	The bibliographic selection was justified, describing inclusion and exclusion criteria in the methodological section, which is detailed in Figure 2.
16	An analysis of the principle addressed was missing, which is essential to validate its normative contribution in algorithmic bioethics.	Added expanded analysis.
17	Ideas for proposed solutions were cited without contrast; contextualizing debates would enrich comparative discussion with relevant authors and divergent perspectives.	Contrasting paragraphs were drafted, discussing proposals by Floridi, Sen, and Hinkelammert, with context and detail.
18	The manuscript required a complete rewrite to transform a superficial revision into a compelling and in-depth theoretical argument.	The entire text was rewritten to enhance its theoretical density and coherence.

We appreciate the editorial support provided throughout the process and reiterate our interest in continuing to publish this article in your prestigious journal.

We look forward to any additional requests.

Sincerely,

the authors

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thanks for taking the time to revise your manuscript . I can definitely see the work you put in, and it’s much improved overall.

First off, the structure flows better now. You’ve cut down on the repetition from the earlier version, and the core ideas—especially the six pillars of benefit-sharing—are clearer and better integrated into your argument. That already makes a big difference.

Your section on methodology is also a step in the right direction. I appreciated the added explanation of your qualitative approach and how you came up with the categories. That said, there’s still a bit of a gap: we don’t really see how you did the coding or what documents were analyzed. Including a coding frame, a short example, or even an appendix with some data would make it much easier for readers to understand—and trust—your process.

You’ve also done a better job bringing in newer sources, which was something I mentioned before. I liked seeing the references to recent policy documents and frameworks. Still, I think the paper would really benefit from one solid, real-world example—something to ground your argument. A case study or even a short section on how benefit-sharing is actually being tried out somewhere (India’s data policy, for example) would go a long way.

Language-wise, the writing is clearer now, but it’s still pretty heavy in places. Some sentences are long and could be trimmed or split up. Also, a few typos and tense shifts still slip through, so I’d recommend one more quick proofread to smooth things out.

One last thought: even with these improvements, the article feels more like a conceptual or position paper than a full empirical study. That’s not a bad thing—your perspective is valuable—but if that’s your aim, maybe just make that clearer upfront, or think about whether this would fit better as a “perspective” piece instead of a traditional article.

All in all, this is a solid step forward. With a few more tweaks—especially tightening the method section and giving us something more concrete to latch onto—I think the piece will be ready to go.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The English is mostly clear, and your ideas come through well, but there are still a few areas where the writing could be tightened up. Some sentences are a bit long or wordy, which can make things harder to follow, and there are occasional small errors (like typos or tense shifts). A final round of editing—especially for clarity and flow—would really help polish the paper and make it easier to read. Nothing major, just some cleanup to smooth things out.

Author Response

Mr. Reviewer 1
Editorial Office – Philosophies
Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute (MDPI)

Subject: Corrections Submitted for Manuscript philosophies-3654690

Dear Reviewer,

We would like to thank you sincerely for your thoughtful and constructive feedback on our manuscript titled “The Principle of Benefit-Sharing Applied to the Development of Artificial Intelligence”, submitted under ID philosophies-3654690.

Following your comments, we have carefully revised the manuscript and addressed each of the seven points you raised. Below is a summary of the corrections made:

#	Comment/Observation	Correction Made
1	Explicitly explain the coding process and which documents were analyzed.	Added two paragraphs in the methodology section (p.12) detailing the coding process and documents reviewed.
2	Include a coding framework and a brief example in an appendix to clarify the process for readers.	Improved the coding explanation and added Appendices A and B on pages 12, 13, and 18.
3	Provide a solid, real-world example of how benefit-sharing is being tested (e.g., India data policy).	Included a paragraph (pp. 4–5) presenting India’s policy as a real case supporting the application of the studied principle.
4	Search for and correct typos throughout the document.	Conducted a full review of the document and corrected all identified typos.
5	Shorten and split long sentences.	Revised the entire manuscript (pp. 1–20) to split and condense overly long sentences and paragraphs.
6	Correct tense inconsistencies in English usage.	Revised and corrected all tense issues throughout the manuscript.
7	Clarify that the article is a conceptual and position piece at the beginning.	Added clarifying statements in both the Abstract and Introduction (pp. 1–2).

We appreciate the opportunity to improve our work through your comments and remain available for any additional requests or further revisions.

Sincerely,

Camilo Andrés Vargas Machado and Andrés Felipe Roncancio Bedoya
Universidad Cooperativa de Colombia
Departamento Magdalena
Calle 12 # 16 a 30 Santa Marta, Colombia
470001 Ciudad de Santa Marta – Colombia
Emails: camilo.vargasma@campusucc.edu.co – andres.roncancio@campusucc.edu.co

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I don't have any special remarks.

Author Response

We have thoroughly reviewed and addressed all the observations and suggestions provided regarding our manuscript, ID: philosophies-3654690, titled “The Principle of Benefit-Sharing Applied to the Development of Artificial Intelligence”.

Below, we present a summary table of the seven key corrections made to the document:

#	Correction	Pages / Action Taken
1	Explicit explanation of the coding process and documents analyzed	Added two detailed paragraphs in the methodology section (p. 12)
2	Include a coding framework with a brief example in an appendix	Improved coding discussion and added Appendices A and B (pp. 12–13, 18)
3	Add a solid real-world case study example (e.g., India’s data policy)	Added a paragraph describing a robust example from India (pp. 4–5)
4	Find and correct typos and minor errors	Reviewed and corrected all typos throughout the document (pp. 1–20)
5	Split and shorten long phrases and sentences	Revised all long paragraphs and sentences for better clarity (pp. 1–20)
6	Fix issues related to tense usage in English	Standardized verb tenses across the manuscript
7	Clearly present the article as a conceptual and perspective piece at the beginning	Clarified this in the Abstract and Introduction (pp. 1–2)

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Article Menu

The Principle of Shared Utilization of Benefits Applied to the Development of Artificial Intelligence

Further Information

Guidelines

MDPI Initiatives

Follow MDPI