Join Our Editorial Board

Help shape the future of young scientific publishing by becoming a peer reviewer.

Apply Now

CV required. We accept candidates with relevant research experience.

The Peer Review Process

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

1. Junior Editor

Performs initial screening for formatting, plagiarism, and completeness.

2. Reviewer Panel

A panel of experts evaluates the manuscript, suggesting approval, revisions, or rejection.

3. Editor in Chief

Makes the final, authoritative decision on whether to publish the paper or not.

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 Us?

For any questions, feel free to contact us at globalyouthsciencejournal@gmail.com.

Apply Now
Latest Publications Author Guidelines Call for Papers Editorial Board Contact
Global Youth Science Journal Editorial Board. (2026). Editorial Board. Global Youth Science Journal. https://globalyouthsciencejournal.app/editorial-board