Editorial Board & Reviewers

Meet the distinguished scholars, student researchers, and academic mentors guiding rigorous peer review, upholding scholarly integrity, and empowering young scientific minds worldwide.

Board Members & Reviewers

Represented Countries

100%

Single-Blind Peer Review

Open Access

Youth STEM Discovery

Aagam Kafle

he/him

Editor-in-Chief

Ullens school, Nepal

2026 - Present

I am a Grade 9 student in Nepal, with a strong interest in medicine, neuroscience, scientific research, technology, and public ...

View Profile

Asit Sachan

he/him

Editor-in-Chief

Lucknow Public Schools and Colleges, India

2026 - Present

Asit Sachan is an Editor at the Global Youth Science Journal (GYSJ), where they love helping young researchers bring their scie...

View Profile

Amritash Patra

he/him

Peer Review Member

Bishnupur Public School, India

2026 - Present

I’m Amriteash Patra, a Class 10 student with a strong interest in theoretical physics and research. I enjoy exploring challen...

View Profile

Devan Yadav

he/him

Peer Review Member

Whitefield Global School, India

2026 - Present

Class 12

View Profile

Johan Lijojoseph

Peer Review Member

Bahrain

2026 - Present

View Profile

Shayala Vishwakarma

they/them

Peer Review Member

Glentree Academy Whitefield, India

2026 - Present

Class 10

View Profile

Agastya Rajchauhan

he/him

All

St. Joseph's Institution, Singapore

A student passionate about science, medicine, and scientific communication. As part of the Global Youth Science Journal team, I...

View Profile

The Peer Review Process

Articles published in peer-reviewed journals meet the discipline's standards, representing the best research practices.

1. Desk Review

Initial desk evaluation checks the paper for fundamental submission requirements, formatting, journal scope, author eligibility, and academic integrity before advancing to reviewers.

2. Peer Review

Independent subject-matter peer reviewers critically evaluate the manuscript under a single-blind review process for scientific rigor, methodology, originality, and clarity.

3. Editor-in-Chief

Acts as the final line of defence to render the definitive publication decision, alongside coordinating final formatting and production with the editorial office.

Review Criteria

Reviewers evaluate scientific and technical merit by assigning an overall impact score and evaluating each criterion below.

Author Eligibility

Ensure the primary authors are young scientists at the time of submission. Reviewers will check if the authors have genuinely contributed to the conceptualization, execution, and writing of the research process, and have documented the consent of any adult mentors or co-authors.

Originality & Plagiarism

The manuscript must be a completely original piece of work. Reviewers use detection software to ensure that any ideas, data, or text sourced from external literature are rigorously cited and appropriately paraphrased. Self-plagiarism, such as resubmitting previously published work, is strictly prohibited.

Academic Honesty & Ethics

Assess if the study adheres to strict scientific and ethical standards. Any use of AI tools for language assistance must be transparently disclosed. Furthermore, studies involving human participants or vertebrate animals must show adherence to humane treatment and note Institutional Review Board (IRB) or equivalent committee consent where applicable.

Manuscript Quality

Evaluate the scientific rigor and structural clarity of the paper. A well-constructed paper should feature a comprehensive Abstract, contextual Introduction, replicable Materials and Methods, clear Results, and a thoughtful Discussion of limitations and future directions. The language should remain objective and academic.

Figures & Tables

Verify that all visual aids, charts, and diagrams are high-resolution, legible, and directly support the research findings. Each figure or table must be accompanied by a bold, descriptive title and a comprehensive caption that includes relevant methodological notes and statistical values.

Citations & References

Check that the authors have prioritized high-quality, primary peer-reviewed sources rather than informal web content or encyclopedias. All in-text citations and the final bibliography must be consistently formatted following the Chicago style guidelines, including proper DOIs and URLs.

Scientific Significance

Determine if the research addresses a relevant and meaningful scientific problem. Reviewers should assess whether the study's aims, if achieved, contribute valuable insights, enhance existing knowledge, or offer practical applications within its respective STEM field.

Methodological Soundness

Critically evaluate the experimental design and procedures. Ensure that the methodology is logically constructed, replicable, and uses appropriate control groups. The chosen methods must be suitable to effectively answer the proposed research question.

Data Analysis & Interpretation

Assess the accuracy and validity of the data analysis. Reviewers must check if the statistical tests applied are appropriate for the data type and if the conclusions drawn by the authors logically and directly follow from their presented results, without overstatement.

Innovation & Creativity

Look for elements of originality and creative problem-solving. This criterion evaluates whether the authors have introduced novel concepts, developed unique experimental setups, or approached an existing scientific challenge from a fresh, innovative perspective.

Clarity of Communication

Judge the overall readability and professional tone of the manuscript. The writing should be clear, concise, and free of informal language or colloquialisms. Reviewers should also note if the manuscript requires significant grammatical revisions.

Limitations & Future Scope

Examine whether the authors demonstrate a mature understanding of their research constraints. A strong paper will critically evaluate its own methodology, openly discuss potential limitations, and suggest concrete, logical directions for future scientific inquiry.

Ready to Join Our Editorial Board?

We continuously welcome talented youth researchers, undergraduate scholars, and academic mentors to join our reviewer panel. For inquiries, reach out at [email protected].

Apply as Reviewer

Aagam Kafle

Asit Sachan

Amritash Patra

Devan Yadav

Johan Lijojoseph

Shayala Vishwakarma

Agastya Rajchauhan

No editorial members found

1. Desk Review

2. Peer Review

3. Editor-in-Chief

Author Eligibility

Originality & Plagiarism

Academic Honesty & Ethics

Manuscript Quality

Figures & Tables

Citations & References

Scientific Significance

Methodological Soundness

Data Analysis & Interpretation

Innovation & Creativity

Clarity of Communication

Limitations & Future Scope

Ready to Join Our Editorial Board?