BRAMS Multidisciplinary Academic Journal
Peer-Reviewed Open Access
Peer-Reviewed Open Access
Submissions
Authors must ensure that their articles are original and that they uphold high standards of scientific integrity. The views expressed in published or presented articles do not necessarily reflect those of the Editorial Board or the BRAMS Institute. As an open-minded think tank, BRAMS encourages authors to explore new ideas; however, that freedom must be exercised with strict regard to common sense and scientific integrity. Failure to meet these expectations will be treated seriously.
No article will be considered for publication if it is simultaneously being considered elsewhere, has already been published, or is scheduled for publication in another venue, or has been uploaded online. This policy is absolute and non-negotiable.
Exceptions to the CC-BY licence may be granted at the discretion of the editorial office, and only under reasonable extenuating circumstances. To request an exception, authors must submit a formal justification. Such requests must be approved in writing by the Editor-in-Chief. In the absence of written approval, the CC-BY licence will apply to all published works without exception.
Authors may enter into separate contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of their published work, provided that they acknowledge its initial publication in BRAMS Journal.
Authors may 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 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 requirements is mandatory.
Before publication, authors may withdraw their manuscript at any time. Where an APC payment has been made, withdrawal will not be refunded.
BRAMS Journal operates a double-blind peer-review process to ensure a fair, unbiased evaluation of all submissions. Under double-blind review, the identities of authors and reviewers remain concealed from one another throughout the process. This approach supports impartial assessment and helps minimise the influence of personal or institutional bias.
The review process comprises three stages. First, initial editorial screening: every submission is assessed for relevance, compliance with the journal’s formatting requirements, and adherence to originality and ethical standards, including similarity checks using tools such as iThenticate/Turnitin. Second, expert peer review: manuscripts that pass the initial screening are sent to two qualified reviewers with appropriate subject expertise and methodological competence for evaluation. In addition, a PhD-qualified reviewer from a different discipline may be invited to provide a broader scholarly perspective. Third, review criteria: reviewers evaluate the originality of the work, the robustness and suitability of the methods, the clarity and organisation of the manuscript, its alignment with the journal’s aims and scope, and the relevance and completeness of the references.
Reviews are typically completed within 2-12 weeks of submission, subject to reviewer availability.
Editorial decisions are made by the handling editor, informed by the reviewers’ reports and the editor’s independent assessment of the manuscript. Manuscripts may be (1) accepted as submitted, (2) accepted with minor changes, (3) accepted with major changes, or (4) rejected.
Authors receive a decision email that includes reviewer feedback. Where revisions are required, authors must either agree to resubmit the revised manuscript or withdraw their publication request. For manuscripts requiring substantial revisions, the revised version will be returned to the reviewers for final assessment.
All authors whose manuscripts undergo peer review are expected to revise their papers in response to comments from reviewers and editors. Once a manuscript is accepted, the author(s) will receive an acceptance email notification. After payment of the manuscript preparation fee, the article will be edited and proofread by two subeditors, and then prepared for technical editing. The manuscript will be published in its initial online edition, and the author(s) will be notified. When the issue is finalised, articles will be published in their final form, and the author(s) will receive an additional email notification.
After acceptance, the manuscript will undergo copy-editing and technical editing before publication. During this stage, the text may be revised or refined to ensure it meets the journal’s academic style standards. The process comprises the following elements:
Proofreading: The editor(s) will correct grammatical errors, punctuation, and any departures from the journal’s style guidelines. This includes identifying and correcting spelling mistakes, ensuring appropriate word usage and syntax, checking consistency in terms, abbreviations, and formatting, and verifying that citations and references are accurate and comply with the required formatting conventions.
Content review: Where appropriate, changes will be proposed to strengthen clarity, coherence, and organisation, improving accessibility for a broader readership. This may involve refining the overall structure and the flow of arguments, ensuring that ideas develop logically throughout the manuscript, and suggesting alternative phrasing for passages that are complex or unclear. Editors will also assess whether examples and anecdotes are suitable and effectively support the stated content.
Substantive editing: The manuscript’s structure and content will be examined in greater depth, with particular attention to clarity and overall effectiveness. This includes assessing the strength and logic of the arguments, ensuring that claims are supported by appropriate and sufficient evidence, checking for thematic consistency, evaluating how well the content engages the intended audience, and adjusting the tone where necessary. Editors may also improve transitions between sections and paragraphs, and ensure that objectives and conclusions are clearly stated and consistent with the body of the article.
Formatting adjustments: The manuscript will be checked for compliance with the journal’s formatting requirements. This process includes reviewing the layout, headings, and subheadings for consistency; ensuring the correct use of fonts, spacing, and margins in accordance with journal guidelines; and formatting tables and figures properly, including their captions and labels. Editors will also verify that all required sections are included and arranged in the correct order according to the journal’s submission guidelines.
Authors should be mindful of the following: (1) Timeframe: the editing process may take several weeks, depending on the manuscript’s complexity. (2) Responsibilities: authors may be asked to review and approve edits, particularly where substantial changes are proposed that could affect the manuscript’s meaning. Active engagement is therefore essential to ensure that the final version accurately reflects the author(s)’ intent and scholarly contribution. The editorial team may contact authors to clarify questions or address concerns that arise during the editing process.
To help avoid delays, authors are encouraged to submit high-quality manuscripts at the outset. A well-prepared submission is the best basis for publication in a shorter timeframe and for limiting delays to other articles scheduled for the same issue. Please approach the editing timeline with care and consideration for one another.
Authorship is defined in accordance with the criteria of the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE). Each author listed on a manuscript must have made a substantial contribution to: (1) the conception or design of the work, or the acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data; (2) drafting the manuscript or critically revising it for important intellectual content; (3) final approval of the version to be published; and (4) accountability for all aspects of the work’s integrity.
Contributions that do not meet the criteria for authorship should be acknowledged in an Acknowledgements section. Any changes to the authorship list after submission require the written consent of all authors and a justification submitted to the editor.
All authors must disclose any financial, professional, or personal relationships that could reasonably be perceived to influence the conduct or reporting of the research. Reviewers and editors must similarly recuse themselves from manuscripts in which they have a competing interest. Disclosure statements will be published with the article.
All authors must agree to the following copyright terms for publication in BRAMS Journal. First publication rights to original works are irrevocably granted to the BRAMS academic journal. Copyright, however, remains with the author(s). Any refusal to accept or comply with these terms will result in the immediate rejection of the manuscript, without exception. Compliance with these requirements is mandatory.
All works published in BRAMS Journal will be distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution Licence (CC-BY). Authors retain ownership of the copyright, while granting permission for others to download, reuse, reprint, modify, distribute, and copy the work, provided that the original source and the author(s) are properly cited. A complete bibliographic citation and a link to the BRAMS Journal web page are required. No additional permission from authors or publishers is necessary for such use. Any reuse or redistribution must explicitly acknowledge the original CC-BY licence terms to ensure compliance.
BRAMS Journal operates a strict, zero-tolerance policy toward plagiarism in all manuscripts submitted for publication. Every submission is screened at the point of intake using iThenticate similarity-detection software (iThenticate/Turnitin). Manuscripts with a text similarity score exceeding 15% (excluding properly quoted material and reference lists) will be returned to the authors for revision.
Authors are strongly encouraged to carry out their own plagiarism checks prior to submission. Accurate attribution is essential. Authors must clearly cite the work of other scholars and must either quote and cite directly, or paraphrase and cite appropriately, so that any borrowed ideas, wording, or data are fully and transparently acknowledged.
Plagiarism includes, but is not limited to, the unauthorised reuse of text previously published elsewhere, including the reuse of the author’s own earlier published work (“self-plagiarism”). All instances of plagiarism constitute serious breaches of publication ethics and may lead to rejection. If plagiarism is detected at any stage, the manuscript will be rejected immediately and will not be eligible for resubmission. If plagiarism is identified after publication, BRAMS reserves the right to retract the work and to prohibit the author(s) from submitting future manuscripts.
If you suspect that your work has been plagiarised in any BRAMS publication, please notify BRAMS promptly and provide verifiable evidence, so that appropriate corrective action can be taken. For queries or complaints relating to plagiarism, contact us at [email protected] or [email protected].
BRAMS is a bilingual multidisciplinary academic journal published by a digitally driven think tank with an international team. We recognise the potential of generative AI tools to support idea generation, assist authors in articulating scholarly work in non-native languages, and accelerate aspects of research. While we acknowledge that large language models (LLMs) can improve efficiency, we emphasise the need for responsible use, including adherence to high standards of data security, confidentiality, and copyright protection.
Despite their capabilities, generative AI cannot replicate human creativity and critical thinking. Several risks must therefore be considered. Generative AI may produce inaccuracies or biases that are difficult to detect. These tools may also fail to meet scholarly expectations for proper attribution of ideas, quotations, and citations. Many AI systems are provided through third-party platforms that may not offer adequate safeguards for confidentiality, data security, or copyright compliance. Some providers may reuse user data, which could infringe the rights of authors and publishers.
To uphold ethical conduct, transparency, and scholarly integrity, BRAMS Journal has established an artificial intelligence policy governing the appropriate use of AI-assisted technologies. This policy is guided by best practice, including guidance issued by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).
Authors preparing a manuscript for BRAMS Journal may use AI tools; however, these tools cannot replace human critical thinking, expertise, or scholarly judgement. Accordingly, all AI-assisted work must be carried out under human oversight. While AI may support various aspects of manuscript development, the author(s) remain solely responsible for the content.
Authors are not required to disclose the use of assistive AI tools that enhance language, grammar, or structure. Nevertheless, authors must carefully review, edit, and verify all AI-generated material to ensure factual accuracy, originality, and compliance with ethical research practices. Because authors are responsible for their submissions, they are accountable for any errors, misrepresentations, or ethical breaches that result from AI-assisted technologies.
BRAMS Journal maintains a strict zero-tolerance policy regarding the misuse of AI. Authors must use generative AI (genAI) in research publishing only in ways that are approved, and they must disclose any such applications during manuscript preparation. This includes, but is not limited to, writing or editing text, translating content, generating images or figures, analysing data, suggesting references, supporting literature reviews, using AI-generated software or code for research, visualising data, creating illustrations or infographics, and checking code for errors with AI assistance. All AI use 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 must not be listed as authors or co-authors, nor referred to as such in the manuscript. Authorship requires the capacity to make meaningful intellectual contributions, to accept accountability for the work, and to uphold ethical standards. Because generative AI systems – such as ChatGPT, Gemini, Claude, Copilot, NovelAI, Jasper AI, DALL·E, Midjourney, and Runway – do not possess human agency, they cannot fulfil human responsibilities and must not be credited as author(s).
If reviewers suspect inappropriate or undisclosed use of generative AI in a submission, they should raise their concerns with the journal editor. If editors suspect genAI use in a manuscript or review, they should consider this policy during their editorial assessment or contact BRAMS for guidance.
Any suspicion of misuse may lead to editorial investigations. Where misconduct is found, whether before or after publication, the manuscript will be rejected or retracted, and appropriate ethical and legal measures will be taken. Editorial investigations into inappropriate use of generative AI in published articles will be led by the editors and members of the editorial board, in line with guidance from COPE and with the journal’s internal policy.
Editors and peer reviewers are not required to disclose the use of assistive AI tools that enhance language, grammar, or structure. Nevertheless, they are responsible for ensuring that their submissions and assessments are accurate, reliable, and consistent with the journal’s scholarly and ethical standards.
Editors and peer reviewers must not upload any part of a submitted manuscript, including excerpts, into a genAI tool. Such actions may compromise the authors’ confidentiality and proprietary rights. Failure to comply may constitute an infringement of the relevant rightsholder’s intellectual property. If a manuscript encloses personally identifiable information, uploading it to genAI tools could also breach applicable data protection and privacy obligations.
Editors must maintain confidentiality regarding all aspects of submissions and the peer-review process, including any information shared with them in connection with editorial decisions.
Peer reviewers must not use genAI tools to draft or edit manuscript reviews without the editor’s explicit permission. Where permission is granted, reviewers must ensure that the manuscript’s confidentiality is fully protected at all times. Reviewers should not upload their peer-review reports to AI tools, even for language enhancement purposes. In all circumstances, reviewers remain responsible for the content and substance of their reports, regardless of whether any AI assistance has been used.
While generative AI may be used to help improve the language of a review, peer reviewers bear full responsibility for the accuracy, integrity, and scholarly soundness of their assessments. Any peer reviewer who inappropriately uses genAI to generate review reports will be barred from future invitations to review for the journal, and their reports will not be considered in the final decision-making process.
The journal and publisher reserve the right to take appropriate action if editors or peer reviewers breach confidentiality by using generative AI tools in connection with submitted manuscripts or the peer-review process.
BRAMS Journal is committed to promoting ethical practice in scholarly publishing. We support the permanent and open availability of research outputs; we foster transparency and accountability through our digital archive and partnerships with libraries and repositories.
Confidentiality is of central importance. Manuscript details are shared only with those peer reviewers and editors who are directly involved in the review and publication processes.
All submitted manuscripts are subject to rigorous peer review by at least three experts, who are expected to provide objective evaluations. Personal bias is strictly prohibited, and reviewers must declare and avoid conflicts of interest. Reviewers are also required to maintain confidentiality regarding any unpublished material encountered during the review process.
Authors are expected to disclose all conflicts of interest and to acknowledge sources of financial support. Where research involves animals or human participants, ethical considerations must comply with all applicable laws and regulations.
The editorial board, in collaboration with the publisher, will address any ethical concerns raised about submitted or published manuscripts. Where confirmed instances of research misconduct are identified, appropriate measures, such as corrections or retractions, will be implemented.
Authors who believe an editorial decision has been reached on factually erroneous grounds, or who wish to contest a reviewer’s substantive claim, may submit a written appeal to the Editor-in-Chief. Appeals must be specific and evidence-based. The Editor-in-Chief may consult an independent reviewer or the editorial board before issuing a final decision.
BRAMS Journal does not accept advertising of any kind. The journal is supported by its publisher, the BRAMS Institute, and by article processing charges levied on accepted submissions.