NHSJS is free to submit to and publishes more about its review process than any comparable student journal: three stages, one or two expert reviewers plus an advisory board member, 8 weeks median to a first decision and 95% within 14. It also sells three Fast Track tiers at $280 each, which sits awkwardly beside the industry standard on author fees.
This is the most transparent journal in its category about how review works, and it also sells a paid queue-jump. Those two facts sit oddly together and both are worth knowing before you submit.
What does NHSJS actually publish?
Original research by high school students across the sciences — and, unusually, literature reviews.
Two article types, with different requirements:
| Type | Must include | Figures and tables |
|---|---|---|
| Research Article | Abstract, introduction, sections with subheadings | Five or more |
| Literature Review | Abstract, introduction, sections with subheadings | No more than four |
Both are "reviewed by peer and professional reviewers," per the journal's own submission-types page.
That literature-review route deserves more attention than it gets. The commonest reason a strong student submission is rejected is not the writing — it is that a review was sent to a journal that publishes only original research. The Journal of Emerging Investigators wants a finding: new measurements, a novel analysis, an experiment you ran. If your project reads and synthesises what others have found, JEI has no home for it however good it is.
NHSJS does. So does the Columbia Junior Science Journal. If you have written a review, those are your two realistic venues in the sciences.
The five-figure minimum on research articles is also a design constraint, not a formatting note. It tells you the journal expects data you can plot — which rules out a project with one result and a conclusion.
How does the review process work?
Three stages, and the journal publishes the timings.
Its peer review page sets out:
| Stage | What happens | How long |
|---|---|---|
| 1. Editorial screening | In-house check before anything goes out | 1–2 weeks |
| 2. Expert peer review | "one or two qualified peer reviewers" | 8–12 weeks for stages 2 and 3 together |
| 3. Scientist Advisory Board | A board member evaluates the paper | (included above) |
| Revision round, if requested | Additional review cycle | ~4 weeks |
Headline figures: 8 weeks median to an initial decision, and 95% of papers decided within 14 weeks.
Nobody else in this category publishes that. JEI gives no timeline at all. The Journal of Student Research gives a 12–24 week range. A median plus a 95th percentile is the kind of number an operation publishes when it is actually measuring, and it lets you plan a submission backwards from a deadline rather than guessing.
Reviewers are described as "graduate students, postdocs, and professional scientists with expertise in the relevant field," with papers also evaluated by "a member of our Scientist Advisory Board, consisting of dedicated researchers and professors."
Decisions come back as Accept, Minor Revisions, Major Revisions, or "Reject – Not suitable for publication in current form." A journal that names rejection as a published outcome is telling you something; several in this category do not.
The reviewer-count problem
"One or two" is the phrase to look at, and the problem is the one.
Think.Check.Submit. tells authors to establish "independent/external reviewers, how many reviewers per paper." NHSJS answers that question, which already puts it ahead of most. But the DOAJ requires "at least two independent reviewers" for inclusion, and a paper that goes to one expert reviewer plus an advisory board member is a thinner process than one that goes to two independent experts.
This is not an accusation. It is the distinction between a paper that was read carefully by one person and a paper where two specialists had to agree — and for a venue you are hoping signals rigour, it is the right question to ask.
The $280 Fast Track
Three tiers, all priced at $280, alongside a free standard route.
Set that against the standard. The joint COPE, DOAJ, OASPA and WAME principles state at Principle 13:
"Author fees or waiver status should not influence editorial decision making."
A paid option that changes how quickly — and unavoidably, by whom and how thoroughly — a paper is assessed sits close to that line. NHSJS is not alone: JSR sells a $300 fast track, Curieux sold one at $250 before it closed. JEI is the outlier, refusing to expedite "for any reason."
Where NHSJS differs from JSR is that its standard route is free. A student who never buys anything gets a real three-stage review at no cost, and that is a materially better deal than paying $50 to submit and $299 on acceptance. The fast track is an option you can decline, not a toll on the main road.
Decline it. If your deadline is in four weeks, the answer is to submit next cycle. An interviewer or admissions reader who knows this sector knows which journals sell speed, and a publication in a venue where money moves the queue reads differently from one where it does not.
How does it compare?
| Journal | Submission cost | Reviewers stated | Published timeline | Takes reviews? | Fast track |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| NHSJS | Free | One or two + board member | 8 wks median, 95% ≤14 | Yes | $280 |
| Journal of Emerging Investigators | $49 | 8+ touch each paper | None published | No | Refused |
| Journal of Student Research | $50 + $299 | Not stated | 12–24 weeks | Limited | $300 |
| Columbia Junior Science Journal | None advertised | Not stated | Fixed elimination rounds | Yes | None |
Read across the row rather than down a column. NHSJS is free, fast, transparent and takes reviews. JEI is paid, slow, opaque on timing, and cannot be hurried with money. Those are different virtues and which matters depends on what you have written and when you need it.
Where we fit
The Oxford Centre for Advanced Research runs 1:1 mentorships with PhD candidates and early-career researchers at Oxford, Cambridge, other leading UK universities and Ivy League institutions. The Oxford Scholar Programme is £2,000 — about $2,600 — for ten contact hours over ten to fourteen weeks; the Oxford Publication Fellowship is £3,400, roughly $4,400.
We submit to the Oxford Journal of Student Scholarship, the Journal of Research High School and Vanderbilt's Young Scientist Journal, through standard review. All three reject student work, ours included. We do not use paid expediting anywhere and we do not promise acceptance, because it is not ours to promise.
A student with a finished science paper and no money should submit to NHSJS or CJSJ before paying anyone, including us. Both are free, and the free route being genuinely good is not something we have an incentive to tell you.
The question to ask any journal
Ask how many independent reviewers see a paper, and when they last rejected one like yours.
NHSJS answers the first question honestly, including the part that is less flattering. That willingness to publish the unflattering number is, in this category, the signal worth weighting.
Frequently asked questions
Is NHSJS free?
Standard submission is free, which puts it ahead of most of this category. It then offers three paid Fast Track options at $280 each. You never have to buy one, and we would advise against it, but the option exists and that shapes how a knowledgeable reader interprets a publication there.
Who reviews the papers?
Graduate students, postdocs and professional scientists with expertise in the relevant field, plus a member of its Scientist Advisory Board. Manuscripts that clear the initial screen go to 'one or two qualified peer reviewers'. One is below the two-independent-reviewer floor the DOAJ sets for inclusion, so the range matters.
How long does review take?
NHSJS publishes real numbers, which almost nobody in this category does: 8 weeks median to an initial decision and 95% of papers decided within 14 weeks. Editorial screening is 1–2 weeks, then expert and advisory board review together take roughly 8–12 weeks. A revision round adds about 4 weeks.
Does NHSJS accept literature reviews?
Yes, and that is genuinely useful. It accepts Research Articles (abstract, introduction, five or more figures or tables, subheadings) and Literature Reviews (abstract, introduction, no more than four figures or tables, subheadings). Most student research journals reject reviews outright, which is the single most common reason a capable student's submission fails.
Should I pay for the Fast Track?
No. If your deadline is too close for honest review, the right answer is to submit next cycle rather than buy the queue. An admissions reader who knows this sector knows which journals sell speed, and buying it costs you the thing you were trying to buy.
Does it assign DOIs or claim indexing?
Neither is mentioned on the pages we could reach. Making no indexing claim is better than making a false one — Iowa State's predatory-publishing guidance lists false indexing claims as a warning sign. But it does mean you should not assume a permanent citable identifier.