Efficient AI-driven allegation screening: A case study of Thailand’s National Anti-Corruption Commission

Issara Sereewatthanawut; Patipan Sriphon; Pattrawut Khunwipusit; Babatunde Oluwaseun Ajayi; Ademola Enitan Ilesanmi; Jutarat Suwaree; Wonlop Writthym Buachoom

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0338633

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionSeptember 3, 2025
5 Oct 2025 Decision Letter - Asif Khan, Editor Dear Dr. Sereewatthanawut, Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process. Please submit your revised manuscript by Nov 19 2025 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org . When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file. A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'. A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'. An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'. If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols . Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols . We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript. Kind regards, Asif Khan, PhD Law Academic Editor PLOS ONE Journal Requirements: When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements. 1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf 2. Please provide additional details regarding participant consent. In the ethics statement in the Methods and online submission information, please ensure that you have specified (1) whether consent was informed and (2) what type you obtained (for instance, written or verbal, and if verbal, how it was documented and witnessed). If your study included minors, state whether you obtained consent from parents or guardians. If the need for consent was waived by the ethics committee, please include this information. If you are reporting a retrospective study of medical records or archived samples, please ensure that you have discussed whether all data were fully anonymized before you accessed them and/or whether the IRB or ethics committee waived the requirement for informed consent. If patients provided informed written consent to have data from their medical records used in research, please include this information. 3. Please note that PLOS One has specific guidelines on code sharing for submissions in which author-generated code underpins the findings in the manuscript. In these cases, we expect all author-generated code to be made available without restrictions upon publication of the work. Please review our guidelines at https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/materials-and-software-sharing#loc-sharing-code and ensure that your code is shared in a way that follows best practice and facilitates reproducibility and reuse. 4. Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure: National Research Council of Thailand Please state what role the funders took in the study. If the funders had no role, please state: "The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript." If this statement is not correct you must amend it as needed. Please include this amended Role of Funder statement in your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf. 5. Thank you for stating the following in the Acknowledgments Section of your manuscript: This research was supported by the National Research Council of Thailand (NRCT), whose support enabled the research to be carried out. We also thank the National Anti-Corruption Commission (NACC) at both the central and regional levels for their collaborative efforts, data provision, and constructive feedback, which confirmed that the system met real needs. Finally, we acknowledge the unfaltering commitment and effort of our co-investigators, whose dedication was crucial in guiding the project from start to finish. We note that you have provided funding information that is not currently declared in your Funding Statement. However, funding information should not appear in the Acknowledgments section or other areas of your manuscript. We will only publish funding information present in the Funding Statement section of the online submission form. Please remove any funding-related text from the manuscript and let us know how you would like to update your Funding Statement. Currently, your Funding Statement reads as follows: National Research Council of Thailand Please include your amended statements within your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf. 6. We note that your Data Availability Statement is currently as follows: All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files. Please confirm at this time whether or not your submission contains all raw data required to replicate the results of your study. Authors must share the “minimal data set” for their submission. PLOS defines the minimal data set to consist of the data required to replicate all study findings reported in the article, as well as related metadata and methods (https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-minimal-data-set-definition). For example, authors should submit the following data: - The values behind the means, standard deviations and other measures reported; - The values used to build graphs; - The points extracted from images for analysis. Authors do not need to submit their entire data set if only a portion of the data was used in the reported study. If your submission does not contain these data, please either upload them as Supporting Information files or deposit them to a stable, public repository and provide us with the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers. For a list of recommended repositories, please see https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/recommended-repositories. If there are ethical or legal restrictions on sharing a de-identified data set, please explain them in detail (e.g., data contain potentially sensitive information, data are owned by a third-party organization, etc.) and who has imposed them (e.g., an ethics committee). Please also provide contact information for a data access committee, ethics committee, or other institutional body to which data requests may be sent. If data are owned by a third party, please indicate how others may request data access. 7. If the reviewer comments include a recommendation to cite specific previously published works, please review and evaluate these publications to determine whether they are relevant and should be cited. There is no requirement to cite these works unless the editor has indicated otherwise. 8. Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice. [Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.] Reviewers' comments: Reviewer's Responses to Questions Comments to the Author 1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ******** 2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? -->?> Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available??> The PLOS Data policy Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English??> Reviewer #1: No Reviewer #2: Yes ****** Reviewer #1: Dear Authors, Your study makes a timely and valuable contribution by demonstrating how AI can improve the efficiency of corruption allegation screening at Thailand’s National Anti-Corruption Commission, with promising results on accuracy and significant reductions in processing time; however, to strengthen the manuscript, I suggest minor revisions: the abstract could better balance methods, results, and policy implications; the introduction should more clearly outline the research gap and draw on recent comparative studies on AI in governance; the methodology would benefit from additional detail on the dataset and language-specific challenges, while the results section could be enhanced with comparative benchmarks and a brief error analysis; finally, expanding the discussion to address policy implications, potential risks such as algorithmic bias, and scalability, along with polishing a few sentences for readability, will make the paper even stronger and more impactful. Reviewer #2: The publication entitled "Efficient AI-Driven Allegation Screening: A Case Study of Thailand’s National Anti-Corruption Commission" offers a pertinent and insightful examination of the integration of artificial intelligence into anti-corruption processes. The case study methodology is well implemented, providing both pragmatic insights and scholarly significance. The emphasis on Thailand’s National Anti-Corruption Commission provides a significant regional viewpoint that is frequently overlooked in AI governance research. The study exhibits methodological rigor, good organization, and a robust understanding of AI systems and institutional settings. The discourse on screening efficiency, data prioritizing, and algorithmic openness is exceptionally well-expressed. Furthermore, the study examines critical ethical and operational issues without exaggerating the potential of AI, so fostering a fair and realistic evaluation. The manuscript is complete and requires no modifications. The writing is lucid and professional, the figures and tables are helpful, and the references are current and relevant. This is a significant addition to the domains of AI in governance and anti-corruption strategies. I endorse the text for acceptance in its current form, requiring only little copyediting for language consistency. ****** what does this mean? ). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files. If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public. Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy Reviewer #1: Yes: Sidra kanwel, Assistant professor, Sarhad institute of legal studies, Sarhad university of science and IT Pakistan Reviewer #2: Yes: MASEEH ULLAH ******** [NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.] While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/ . PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0338633.r001
Revision 1
12 Nov 2025 Author Response Editor Comment: Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming Response: The manuscript has been revised in accordance with the PLOS ONE’s style guidelines. Comment: Please provide additional details regarding participant consent. In the ethics statement in the Methods and online submission information, please ensure that you have specified (1) whether consent was informed and (2) what type you obtained (for instance, written or verbal, and if verbal, how it was documented and witnessed). If your study included minors, state whether you obtained consent from parents or guardians. If the need for consent was waived by the ethics committee, please include this information. If you are reporting a retrospective study of medical records or archived samples, please ensure that you have discussed whether all data were fully anonymized before you accessed them and/or whether the IRB or ethics committee waived the requirement for informed consent. If patients provided informed written consent to have data from their medical records used in research, please include this information. Response All participants were properly informed about the objectives and procedures of the study before providing consent. Written consent was obtained through two methods: (i) an official announcement document shared with participants, and (ii) an on-screen agreement presented on the web application interface before the commencement of the test. In addition, verbal consent was obtained and witnessed during a pre-test meeting to further ensure participants' understanding and voluntary participation. No minors were involved in this study. A waiver from the ethics committee was unnecessary, as all participants provided informed consent. This statement is provided in the methodology section (see page 17) and also has been included in the online submission system. Comment: Please note that PLOS One has specific guidelines on code sharing for submissions in which author-generated code underpins the findings in the manuscript. In these cases, we expect all author-generated code to be made available without restrictions upon publication of the work. Please review our guidelines at https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/materials-and-software-sharing#loc-sharing-code and ensure that your code is shared in a way that follows best practice and facilitates reproducibility and reuse. Response: The codes and related sources for this project can be accessed at https://github.com/VAP-Solution/kpi_accusation_fieldtest, which contains materials related to the field test. The test employed a custom web application developed using Appsmith, available at https://www.vapsolution.app/nacc_llm_fieldtest, which served as the primary interface for testing and data collection. However, the research data cannot be made publicly available due to data protection agreements with the data provider, the National Anti-Corruption Commission (NACC) of Thailand. Comment: Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure: National Research Council of Thailand Please state what role the funders took in the study. If the funders had no role, please state: "The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript." If this statement is not correct you must amend it as needed. Please include this amended Role of Funder statement in your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf. Response: The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. Comment: Thank you for stating the following in the Acknowledgments Section of your manuscript: This research was supported by the National Research Council of Thailand (NRCT), whose support enabled the research to be carried out. We also thank the National Anti-Corruption Commission (NACC) at both the central and regional levels for their collaborative efforts, data provision, and constructive feedback, which confirmed that the system met real needs. Finally, we acknowledge the unfaltering commitment and effort of our co-investigators, whose dedication was crucial in guiding the project from start to finish. We note that you have provided funding information that is not currently declared in your Funding Statement. However, funding information should not appear in the Acknowledgments section or other areas of your manuscript. We will only publish funding information present in the Funding Statement section of the online submission form. Please remove any funding-related text from the manuscript and let us know how you would like to update your Funding Statement. Currently, your Funding Statement reads as follows: National Research Council of Thailand Please include your amended statements within your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf. Response: All funding-related text has been removed from the manuscript, and the acknowledgement section has been revised accordingly Funding: This research received funding from the National Research Council of Thailand (NRCT), Thailand Comment: We note that your Data Availability Statement is currently as follows: All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files. Please confirm at this time whether or not your submission contains all raw data required to replicate the results of your study. Authors must share the “minimal data set” for their submission. PLOS defines the minimal data set to consist of the data required to replicate all study findings reported in the article, as well as related metadata and methods (https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-minimal-data-set-definition). For example, authors should submit the following data: - The values behind the means, standard deviations and other measures reported; - The values used to build graphs; - The points extracted from images for analysis. Authors do not need to submit their entire data set if only a portion of the data was used in the reported study. If your submission does not contain these data, please either upload them as Supporting Information files or deposit them to a stable, public repository and provide us with the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers. For a list of recommended repositories, please see https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/recommended-repositories. If there are ethical or legal restrictions on sharing a de-identified data set, please explain them in detail (e.g., data contain potentially sensitive information, data are owned by a third-party organization, etc.) and who has imposed them (e.g., an ethics committee). Please also provide contact information for a data access committee, ethics committee, or other institutional body to which data requests may be sent. If data are owned by a third party, please indicate how others may request data access. Response: The codes and related sources for this project can be accessed at https://github.com/VAP-Solution/kpi_accusation_fieldtest, which contains materials related to the field test. The test employed a custom web application developed using Appsmith, available at https://www.vapsolution.app/nacc_llm_fieldtest, which served as the primary interface for testing and data collection. However, the research data cannot be made publicly available due to data protection agreements with the data provider, the National Anti-Corruption Commission (NACC) of Thailand. Comment: Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice. Response: During the revision process, additional relevant studies were cited to strengthen the content of the paper, particularly in the Introduction and Results sections. The newly added references are highlighted in red for ease of identification. Reviewer 1 Comment: Your study makes a timely and valuable contribution by demonstrating how AI can improve the efficiency of corruption allegation screening at Thailand’s National Anti-Corruption Commission, with promising results on accuracy and significant reductions in processing time; however, to strengthen the manuscript, I suggest minor revisions: the abstract could better balance methods, results, and policy implications; the introduction should more clearly outline the research gap and draw on recent comparative studies on AI in governance; the methodology would benefit from additional detail on the dataset and language-specific challenges, while the results section could be enhanced with comparative benchmarks and a brief error analysis; finally, expanding the discussion to address policy implications, potential risks such as algorithmic bias, and scalability, along with polishing a few sentences for readability, will make the paper even stronger and more impactful Response: The abstract has been revised to provide a balanced presentation of the methods, results, and policy implications (see pages 1-2). The introduction has been thoroughly updated to clearly articulate the research gap and incorporate comparative studies on the use of AI in governance (see pages 3-5). The methodology section has been carefully expanded to include additional details on the dataset and language-specific challenges (see pages 12-17). The results section now presents a more detailed comparison of findings, while the explanation of the error analysis has been refined for greater clarity (see pages 24-26). Furthermore, the discussion section has been comprehensively revised to address policy implications, potential risks, and scalability (see pages 32-34). Overall, the entire manuscript has undergone extensive revision to improve clarity, coherence, and conciseness. Reviewer 2 Comment: The publication entitled "Efficient AI-Driven Allegation Screening: A Case Study of Thailand’s National Anti-Corruption Commission" offers a pertinent and insightful examination of the integration of artificial intelligence into anti-corruption processes. The case study methodology is well implemented, providing both pragmatic insights and scholarly significance. The emphasis on Thailand’s National Anti-Corruption Commission provides a significant regional viewpoint that is frequently overlooked in AI governance research. The study exhibits methodological rigor, good organization, and a robust understanding of AI systems and institutional settings. The discourse on screening efficiency, data prioritizing, and algorithmic openness is exceptionally well-expressed. Furthermore, the study examines critical ethical and operational issues without exaggerating the potential of AI, so fostering a fair and realistic evaluation. The manuscript is complete and requires no modifications. The writing is lucid and professional, the figures and tables are helpful, and the references are current and relevant. This is a significant addition to the domains of AI in governance and anti-corruption strategies. I endorse the text for acceptance in its current form, requiring only little copyediting for language consistency. Response: The entire manuscript has been carefully revised and thoroughly proofread to ensure consistency and clarity. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0338633.r002
25 Nov 2025 Decision Letter - Asif Khan, Editor Efficient AI-Driven Allegation Screening: A Case Study of Thailand’s National Anti-Corruption Commission PONE-D-25-44792R1 Dear Dr. Sereewatthanawut, We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements. Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication. An invoice will be generated when your article is formally accepted. Please note, if your institution has a publishing partnership with PLOS and your article meets the relevant criteria, all or part of your publication costs will be covered. Please make sure your user information is up-to-date by logging into Editorial Manager at Editorial Manager® and clicking the ‘Update My Information' link at the top of the page. For questions related to billing, please contact billing support . If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org. Kind regards, Asif Khan, PhD Law Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (optional): Reviewers' comments: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0338633.r003
Formally Accepted
Acceptance Letter - Asif Khan, Editor PONE-D-25-44792R1 PLOS One Dear Dr. Sereewatthanawut, I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS One. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now being handed over to our production team. At this stage, our production department will prepare your paper for publication. This includes ensuring the following: * All references, tables, and figures are properly cited * All relevant supporting information is included in the manuscript submission, * There are no issues that prevent the paper from being properly typeset You will receive further instructions from the production team, including instructions on how to review your proof when it is ready. Please keep in mind that we are working through a large volume of accepted articles, so please give us a few days to review your paper and let you know the next and final steps. Lastly, if your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org. You will receive an invoice from PLOS for your publication fee after your manuscript has reached the completed accept phase. If you receive an email requesting payment before acceptance or for any other service, this may be a phishing scheme. Learn how to identify phishing emails and protect your accounts at https://explore.plos.org/phishing. If we can help with anything else, please email us at customercare@plos.org. Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access. Kind regards, PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff on behalf of Dr. Asif Khan Academic Editor PLOS One https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0338633.r004

Open letter on the publication of peer review reports

PLOS recognizes the benefits of transparency in the peer review process. Therefore, we enable the publication of all of the content of peer review and author responses alongside final, published articles. Reviewers remain anonymous, unless they choose to reveal their names.

We encourage other journals to join us in this initiative. We hope that our action inspires the community, including researchers, research funders, and research institutions, to recognize the benefits of published peer review reports for all parts of the research system.

Learn more at ASAPbio .