Structured PREreview of AI Governance in Education: A Comparative Policy Analysis of China, Singapore, and the European Union

Does the introduction explain the objective of the research presented in the preprint?

Yes

1. It helps identify the importance of AI governance in education 2. It states the current policy gap in how AI is utilised in education.

Are the methods well-suited for this research?

Somewhat appropriate

Overall the chosen method is well suited for the research; however, 1) The authors should justify their rationale for selecting the documents. The inclusion and exclusion criteria for the documents should be explicitly stated. 2) Despite the explanation given, the reported Cohen's Kappa of 1.00 remains questionable. 3) The risk of selective extraction while using a purposive sampling technique should be acknowledged in the limitation section.

Are the conclusions supported by the data?

Somewhat supported

A conclusion and recommendation section is missing in the paper; authors are advised to work on the structure. The statement "Finally, this research paper proves that there is no single global AI educational governance," as seen in the abstract, reveals that the authors are overgeneralising the findings of their study.

Are the data presentations, including visualizations, well-suited to represent the data?

Highly appropriate and clear

How clearly do the authors discuss, explain, and interpret their findings and potential next steps for the research?

Somewhat clearly

The findings were well interpreted and aligned with the stated objectives; however, the discussion section does not have citations. The discussion should focus on policy implementation rather than educational outcomes, as the study's data originated from policy documents. The limitations of study should be acknowledged and sufficiently stated. Finally, recommendations for future studies should be clearly stated.

Is the preprint likely to advance academic knowledge?

Highly likely

Would it benefit from language editing?

No

There needs to be a clear definition of the terminologies and a better choice of vocabulary for easy understanding by the readership. The few grammatical errors in the manuscript need to be corrected.

Would you recommend this preprint to others?

Yes, but it needs to be improved

Is it ready for attention from an editor, publisher or broader audience?

Yes, after minor changes

All that has been stated needs to be addressed.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Use of Artificial Intelligence (AI)

The authors declare that they did not use generative AI to come up with new ideas for their review.