PREreview of Empowering Africa: An In-depth Exploration of the Adoption of Artificial Intelligence Across the Continent

This review is the result of a virtual, collaborative live review discussion organized and hosted by PREreview as part of the PREreview Champions Program 2025. The discussion was joined by 6 people: 2 facilitators, one of whom was a member of the PREreview 2025 Champions Program cohort, and 4 other cohort members. We thank all participants who contributed to the discussion and made it possible for us to provide feedback on this preprint. The authors of this review have dedicated additional asynchronous time over the course of two weeks to help compose this final report using the notes from the Live Review. 

Summary

Research question

This study examines the adoption of Artificial Intelligence (AI) across different African regions, focusing on its applications in healthcare, agriculture, finance, and education. It explores infrastructural, cultural, and regulatory influences on AI development while emphasizing the importance of an inclusive and ethical AI ecosystem. The research highlights both opportunities and challenges in AI implementation, advocating for responsible use to support sustainable development. Additionally, it provides insights into policy and strategic planning for local capacity building, contributing to broader global discussions on AI’s role in socio-economic progress from an African perspective.

Research approach

Using case studies from sectors such as agriculture, healthcare, finance, and education, the authors conducted an exploratory and multidisciplinary analysis of AI integration in Africa. To provide a broad context, they reviewed existing literature on AI applications across various fields, including healthcare and entertainment. They also examined AI policies developed by African countries like Egypt and Rwanda. Rather than conducting experimental or quantitative research, they relied on secondary sources such as data, literature, policy reports, and case studies to assess AI’s socio-economic implications. However, they did not offer a detailed description of their methodological approach, only noting that the article was structured into sections without guiding readers on how the content was gathered. Their analysis covered AI-related policy adoption, ethical considerations, stakeholder engagement, and the broader landscape of AI applications in Africa.

Research findings

AI has significant potential to address socio-economic challenges across various sectors in Africa, including healthcare, agriculture, education, and finance. However, the successful implementation of AI depends on access to high-quality data and strong regulatory frameworks to prevent misuse. Ethical concerns, such as cultural diversity, data privacy, and gender equity, must also be carefully considered. While AI can enhance productivity and accessibility, researchers found that its impact could negatively affect women within the African context. Additionally, despite progress, Africa still lacks comprehensive policies to guide AI adoption and governance. A strategic approach to AI development, one that integrates ethical considerations and addresses potential biases, is essential for ensuring its inclusive and transformative role in African economies.

List of major concerns and feedback

Lack of a transparent and reproducible methodology framework

The paper would benefit from more transparency regarding the sources selected and the methodology used to gather them. Currently, it lacks a detailed explanation of how the sources were found and analyzed, as well as the inclusion and exclusion criteria for selecting papers, articles, and policies. Without such a framework, it is difficult to assess the reproducibility of the study and the strength of the conclusions that are drawn. Adding a brief “Methods” section could address this by describing where the authors searched for materials (which journals), what types of sources were included, and the overall approach for their analyses. Furthermore, the paper is written as a narrative review, but based on the goals of the manuscript, reframing the paper as a scoping review or a systematic review may be more appropriate. If the authors choose to keep the narrative review format, briefly explaining why a narrative approach was used could help to set expectations for readers. These approaches could help to ensure that the analysis is more rigorous and reproducible. 

Use of Sources and Citations 

 While the authors reference other papers, much of the content of the manuscript involves summarizing, rather than synthesizing insights across studies. A more integrated analysis that connects and compares findings and policies from different sources would strengthen the paper’s contribution. In addition, several claims and conclusions would benefit from more citations to support them. The authors are also encouraged to consider a broader and more balanced selection of references. Many of the current sources appear to reflect a largely pro-AI perspective.  Incorporating a broader range of sources and including a deeper discussion of challenges and ethical concerns of AI adoption would provide a more comprehensive, well-rounded, and nuanced analysis.  Additionally, there are some misformatted references, with missing titles, which make it difficult to cross-reference the cited works. Ensuring accurate and complete references would improve both the credibility and reproducibility of the review.  

Limited Depth and Focus on the African Context 

The paper introduces several broad ideas regarding AI adoption, but would greatly benefit from a more robust centring in the African context. A number of the points raised regarding AI adoption and limitations are general and could also apply to settings outside of Africa. To improve the paper’s relevance and impact, it would be valuable to incorporate specific examples from African countries, such as case studies, pilot projects, or region-specific research and policies. Including information about country-level variations, such as differences in infrastructure, regulations, technological capacity, or community needs, could provide important context and would enable a more meaningful analysis of AI adoption on the African continent. Furthermore, while the authors mention the ethics of AI, the discussion is quite limited. Drawing on specific examples from the African context and referencing specific policies, research, or frameworks would give the analysis more depth and relevance. Overall, a deeper and more detailed exploration of region-specific opportunities and challenges would strengthen the manuscript and could help to ensure that the conclusions reflect the realities of the diverse African contexts the paper aims to address. 

Strength and Depth of Conclusions 

The conclusions in the manuscript would benefit from greater specificity and depth. Currently, the recommendations are broad and could apply to a wide range of global contexts, which may limit their usefulness for policymakers working within Africa. To strengthen this section, the authors could consider providing more targeted, actionable guidance for different stakeholders such as government, academic institutions, or industry leaders, and organizing these insights into distinct sections on “Policy Recommendations” or “Future Directions”. Additionally, including a brief limitation section that explains the scope of the review, selection criteria for sources, and challenges in sourcing data specific to Africa could improve the transparency and reproducibility of the work. 

List of minor concerns and feedback

• This manuscript lacks any tables, which is unusual for a research paper presenting data or comparative analysis. Include well-structured tables to summarise key data points, findings, or comparisons made in the study.

• The absence of tables and figures also limits the accessibility and appeal of the paper, especially for policy makers and practitioners who usually rely on quick summaries. Add infographics, charts, and summary tables such as a comparison of AI adoption strategies across African countries or visual maps showing areas of AI application. This would enhance the paper's clarity, accessibility, and usefulness for readers.

• The title “Empowering Africa: An In-depth Exploration of the Adoption of Artificial Intelligence across the Continent” is clear and strong, but it could be even better by focusing more on specific areas like policies, ethics, or regional issues. This would help readers understand what to expect and show what the paper is really about. A title like “Empowering Africa: Policy, Ethics, and Socio-Economic Impacts of Artificial Intelligence Adoption” would give a clearer picture of the paper’s main ideas and speak more directly to interested readers.

• This manuscript currently leans heavily toward promoting AI, rather than providing a balanced and critical analysis of both the opportunities and challenges specific to the African context. The authors should adjust the tone to reflect a more objective stance by incorporating a balanced discussion on risks, infrastructural limitations, ethical concerns, and regional disparities in access to AI and implementation.

• The paper repeats similar ideas across multiple sections—for instance, the benefits of personalized AI solutions appear in both sectoral and policy sections. Redundancy affects the flow and can make the reader disengage. Eliminating repetition would enhance readability for people to engage.

We thank the authors of the preprint for posting their work openly for feedback. We also thank all participants of the Live Review call for their time and for engaging in the lively discussion that generated this review.

Competing interests

Vanessa Fairhurst was a facilitator of this call and one of the organizers. Roseline Dzekem Dine was also a call facilitator as well as a reviewer of the preprint.