Cited by 2Ethics and Social Impacts of AIE-Government and Public ServicesDigitalization, Law, and Regulation

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Auditing Artificial Intelligence in Public Management: A Framework for Accountability, Transparency, and Ethical Governance

Open access

Abstract

The integration of Artificial Intelligence (AI) in public management has transformed governmental operations, decision-making processes, and service delivery mechanisms. However, this technological adoption introduces unprecedented challenges in accountability, transparency, bias mitigation, and ethical governance. This article proposes a comprehensive framework for auditing AI systems in public sector contexts, addressing both technical and governance dimensions. Through systematic literature review and analysis of emerging regulatory frameworks, we identify critical audit domains including algorithmic transparency, data governance, decision explicability, bias detection, and compliance verification. The study examines case implementations in public procurement, social services, and administrative decision-making, drawing insights from international experiences and regulatory developments. Key findings reveal that effective AI auditing requires multi-dimensional approaches combining technical validation, ethical assessment, legal compliance verification, and stakeholder engagement. The proposed framework establishes methodological guidelines for internal auditors, external oversight bodies, and governance structures, emphasizing risk-based auditing strategies aligned with public sector accountability principles. This research contributes to the emerging discourse on AI governance in public administration by providing practical audit methodologies adaptable to diverse governmental contexts while maintaining democratic values and citizen protection standards.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.65150/ep-jsshrs/v1e6/2025-04

Cites

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The references supplied by the user foreground transparency, auditing, and international accountability norms as a mature research frontier rather than a supplementary concern.

    “The references supplied by the user clearly foreground transparency, auditing, and international accountability norms as a mature research frontier rather than a supplementary concern (García, Rivera & Iserte 2025; Luna 2025).”

    From Toward Trustworthy Artificial Intelligence in Law and Public Administration: Transparency, Accountability and Decision Support (2026) · cites this paper as Luna 2025

    The Critical Audit Dimensions and Conclusions sections make transparency, auditing, and accountability central to the paper, while §2.2 examines regulatory frameworks across multiple jurisdictions. But the paper calls AI governance in public administration an “emerging discourse,” not a mature research frontier; it also does not characterize the citing document’s references as a group. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

No references could be resolved yet.

Research works printed but not linked: 7

  1. Ananny, M., & Crawford, K. (2018). Seeing without knowing: Limitations of the transparency ideal and its application to algorithmic accountability. New Media & Society, 20(3), 973-989. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444816676645 · DOI · Paper page
  2. Arrieta, A. B., et al. (2020). Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI): Concepts, taxonomies, opportunities and challenges toward responsible AI. Information Fusion, 58, 82-115. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.inffus.2019.12.012 · DOI · Paper page
  3. Barocas, S., & Selbst, A. D. (2016). Big data's disparate impact. California Law Review, 104(3), 671-732. https://doi.org/10.15779/Z38BG31 · DOI · Paper page
  4. Burrell, J. (2016). How the machine 'thinks': Understanding opacity in machine learning algorithms. Big Data & Society, 3(1), 1-12. https://doi.org/10.1177/2053951715622512 · DOI · Paper page
  5. Coglianese, C., & Lehr, D. (2019). Transparency and algorithmic governance. Administrative Law Review, 71(1), 1-56.
  6. Diakopoulos, N. (2016). Accountability in algorithmic decision making. Communications of the ACM, 59(2), 56-62. https://doi.org/10.1145/2844110 · DOI · Paper page
  7. Eubanks, V. (2018). Automating inequality: How high-tech tools profile, police, and punish the poor. St. Martin's Press.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
EsSalud – Seguro Social de Salud, P., & Luna, J. C. R.
Affiliations
EsSALUD (PE)
Venue
Journal of Social Science and Human Research Studies
Publisher
EP-Journals
Published
2025-12-22
Volume
01
Issue
06
ISSN
  • 3051-3553 (ISSN-L)
  • 3051-3561
OpenAlex
W7116711301
Cited by
0
References
0
FWCI
0.00
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
Journal of Social Science and Human Research Studies (publishedVersion, cc-by)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
  • Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › E-Government and Public Services
  • Social Sciences › Law › Digitalization, Law, and Regulation
Keywords
artificial intelligence in auditing, government accountability, algorithmic transparency, algorithmic bias detection, data governance, AI ethics, AI governance, regulatory compliance verification, risk-based auditing, public procurement, social services, administrative decisions, stakeholder engagement

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review