Authors must ensure their articles are original and uphold high standards of scientific integrity. All published or presented opinions do not reflect the views of the Editorial Board or the BRAMS Institute. As an open-minded think tank, we authorise authors the freedom to explore ideas. However, this freedom requires strict adherence to common sense and scientific integrity. Failure to meet these expectations will be taken seriously.

No article will be considered for publication if it is concurrently under consideration by another publication, has been published or is scheduled for publication elsewhere, or has been uploaded online. This policy is absolute and non-negotiable.

Exceptions to the CC-BY license are at the editorial office's discretion and will only be granted under reasonable extenuating circumstances. To request an exception, authors must submit a formal justification. This request must be approved in writing by the Editor-in-Chief of the Journal. In the absence of such written approval, the CC-BY license will apply to all published works without exception.

Authors may enter into separate contractual agreements for the non-exclusive distribution of their published work, provided they acknowledge its initial publication in the BRAMS Journal.

Authors can post their work online in institutional repositories or on their own websites. All pre-print versions must include a citation and a link to the final published version in the BRAMS Journal as soon as the issue becomes available. Post-print versions, including the final publisher’s PDF, must also include a citation and a link to the journal’s web page. Compliance with these posting instructions is mandatory.

 

Copyright Policy

All authors must accept the following copyright terms for publication in the BRAMS Journal: First publication rights to original works are irrevocably granted to the BRAMS academic journal. Copyright remains with the author(s). Refusal to accept or comply with these terms will lead to immediate rejection of the manuscript, without exception. Compliance with these requirements is mandatory.

All works published in the BRAMS Journal will be distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution License (CC-BY). Authors retain copyright ownership but grant permission for others to download, reuse, reprint, modify, distribute, and copy their work, provided the original source and author(s) are cited correctly. A complete bibliographic citation and a link to the BRAMS Journal web page are mandatory. No additional permission is required from authors or publishers for such use. All reuse or redistribution must explicitly reference the original CC-BY license terms for compliance.

 

Plagiarism Policy

The BRAMS Journal upholds a zero-tolerance policy towards plagiarism. All submitted manuscripts undergo a thorough similarity check using iThenticate (Turnitin) software to detect text similarity and potential plagiarism. Authors are strongly advised to conduct their own plagiarism checks prior to submission to avoid rejection or ethical issues. Accurate citation and quotation are essential when referencing or paraphrasing the work of other scholars.

If plagiarism is identified at any stage, the article will be immediately rejected and will not be considered for resubmission. In cases of published work found to contain plagiarism post-publication, BRAMS reserves the right to retract the article and prohibit the author(s) from submitting future work.

If you suspect that your work has been plagiarised in any BRAMS publication, please notify us with verifiable evidence. We are committed to taking prompt corrective action to address such issues. For queries or complaints related to plagiarism, contact us directly at bramsinstitute@gmail.com.

 

AI Policy

The bilingual academic journal BRAMS, published by a digitally-driven think tank with an international team, recognises the potential of generative AI tools to enhance idea generation, assist authors in articulating content in non-native languages, and accelerate research processes. While we acknowledge that large language models (LLMs) can improve efficiency, we emphasise the need for responsible usage, ensuring compliance with high standards of data security, confidentiality, and copyright protection.

Despite their capabilities, generative AI cannot replicate human creativity and critical thinking. Several risks must be considered:

1. Generative AI may produce inaccuracies or biases that are difficult to detect.
2. These tools often fail to meet scholarly norms for proper attribution of ideas, quotes, or citations.
3. Many operate on third-party platforms lacking sufficient confidentiality, data security, and copyright protection.
4. Providers may reuse user data, potentially infringing on the rights of authors and publishers.

To uphold ethical conduct, transparency, and scholarly integrity, BRAMS Journal has established an artificial intelligence policy for the appropriate use of AI-assisted technologies, guided by best practices, including those from the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).

For Authors

Authors preparing a manuscript for the BRAMS Journal may use AI tools; however, these tools cannot replace human critical thinking, expertise, and evaluation. Therefore, they must always operate under human oversight. While AI can assist in various aspects of manuscript development, the ultimate responsibility for the content rests with the author(s).

Authors are not required to disclose the use of assistive AI tools that enhance language, grammar, or structure. They must meticulously review, edit, and validate any AI-generated material to ensure factual accuracy, originality, and compliance with ethical research practices since authors are accountable for any errors, misrepresentations, or ethical breaches related to AI technologies in their manuscripts.

The BRAMS Journal has a zero-tolerance policy concerning the misuse of AI. Authors must adhere to approved uses of genAI in research publishing and disclose any applications during the manuscript preparation process. This includes writing or editing text, translating content, generating images or figures, analysing data, suggesting references, assisting with literature reviews, using AI-generated software or code for research, visualising data, creating illustrations or infographics, and checking code for errors using AI assistance. All uses must be documented in a dedicated section of the manuscript, such as the Methods section. For example: "The author(s) used OpenAI’s ChatGPT to edit and refine the Introduction. All outputs were reviewed and verified by the author(s)."

AI tools should not be listed as authors or co-authors, nor should they be referenced as such in the manuscript. Authorship requires the ability to make meaningful intellectual contributions, accept accountability for the work, and uphold ethical standards. Since generative AI tools—such as ChatGPT, Gemini, Claude, Copilot, NovelAI, Jasper AI, DALL-E, Midjourney, and Runway—lack human agency, they cannot fulfil human responsibilities and must not be credited as author(s).

Reviewers suspecting inappropriate or undisclosed use of generative AI in a submission should flag their concerns with the journal editor. If editors suspect the use of genAI in a submitted manuscript or review, they should consider this policy during their editorial assessment or contact the BRAMS representative for guidance.

Any suspicion of misuse may be subject to editorial investigations. If misconduct is discovered—whether before or after publication—the manuscript will be rejected or retracted, and appropriate ethical and legal actions will be taken. The journal editors and editorial board members will lead investigations into concerns regarding the inappropriate use of generative AI in published articles, following guidance from COPE and our internal policy.

For Editors and Peer Reviewers

Editors and peer reviewers are not required to disclose the use of assistive AI tools that enhance language, grammar, or structure, but they are responsible for ensuring the accuracy of their submissions.

Editors and peer reviewers must not upload a submitted manuscript, or any part of it, into a genAI tool, as this may violate authors' confidentiality and proprietary rights. Failure to comply may infringe upon the rightsholder’s intellectual property. If the manuscript contains personally identifiable information, doing so could breach data privacy rights.

Editors must maintain confidentiality regarding submission and peer review details.

Peer reviewers may not use genAI tools to draft or edit manuscript reviews without explicit permission from the editor. When such permission is granted, reviewers must ensure the manuscript's confidentiality is fully protected. They should not upload their peer review reports into AI tools, even for language enhancement. They are expected to take full responsibility for their reviews, regardless of whether AI assistance is used.

While generative AI may assist in improving the language of reviews, peer reviewers bear full responsibility for ensuring the accuracy and integrity of their assessments. Those who inappropriately use generative AI tools to generate review reports will be barred from future invitations to review for the journal, and their reviews will not be considered in the final decision.

The journal and publisher reserve the right to take action if editors and peer reviewers breach confidentiality by using generative AI tools.

 

Publication Ethics

Publication Ethics [...]