Four article types — original investigations, reviews, viewpoints and conference proceedings — which is broader than most student journals. Blind review, CC BY 4.0, hosted on UBC's Open Journal Systems. Free to submit, then $400 CAD on acceptance unless you have a waiver. And authors must supply their own peer reviewer list, which is worth understanding before you submit.
Most student journals take one kind of paper. This one takes four, which is the main reason to consider it — and it has two features you should understand before submitting.
The four article types
Broader than almost anything else in this category.
| Type | What it is |
|---|---|
| Original Investigations | "the student(s)' original work" — experimental data or collected information reporting novel results |
| Review Articles | A critical review of a specific area, with a synthesis |
| Viewpoint Articles | Addressing important or controversial topics |
| Conference Proceedings | Abstracts from presentations, posters and seminars |
Two of these are genuinely unusual.
Review Articles. Sending a literature review to a journal that publishes original research only is the commonest avoidable rejection in student publishing. Vanderbilt's Young Scientist Journal states "Original research only, no review articles will be accepted," and the Journal of Emerging Investigators wants a finding. SFJ joins NHSJS, the Columbia Junior Science Journal, IJHSR and the Oxford Journal of Student Scholarship in taking them.
Viewpoint Articles. Almost nowhere else in student publishing accepts an argued position piece. If you have written something that is neither new data nor a survey of the literature but a case about a contested question, this is one of very few homes for it.
The journal also notes that Original Investigations may be produced "with or without a mentor's help," which is a useful signal for a self-directed student — several venues assume a mentor is involved.
What it costs
Nothing to submit. $400 CAD on acceptance, unless you have a waiver.
The submissions page requires authors to either attach proof of a discount or waiver, or agree to pay "a $400 CAD fee to publish the manuscript upon acceptance."
The discount and waiver amounts are not published, which is the gap worth closing by email before you submit rather than after you are accepted.
On structure, this is the arrangement the standards bodies watch most closely. The joint COPE, DOAJ, OASPA and WAME principles state at Principle 13 that "author fees or waiver status should not influence editorial decision making." A fee charged only on acceptance means the journal earns nothing when it rejects a paper — a description of the incentive rather than an accusation about any decision.
Across the category:
| Journal | At submission | On acceptance | What the structure rewards |
|---|---|---|---|
| Journal of Emerging Investigators | $49 | — | Screening out unserious submissions |
| STEM Fellowship Journal | Free | $400 CAD | Saying yes |
| IJHSR | Free | $350 | Saying yes |
| NHSJS | Free | — ($280 fast track) | Neither, but sells speed |
| Journal of Student Research | $50 | $299 | Both |
| Young Scientist Journal | Not mentioned | Not mentioned | Neither |
There is no paid fast track at SFJ, which is a point in its favour — the fee cannot buy you a faster or easier outcome, only publication of something already accepted.
The peer reviewer list
The feature that most needs explaining, because students will not have met it before.
Authors must provide a Peer Reviewer List alongside the manuscript. In academic publishing this is ordinary: a researcher knows who the specialists in their subfield are, and suggesting three or four saves an editor time. Journals typically use suggested names at their discretion alongside reviewers they select themselves.
For a school student it is harder, and worth thinking through:
Who you might suggest. Your mentor's colleagues (not your mentor). An author of a paper you cited. A graduate student or postdoc working in the area who has published on it. A teacher with a doctorate in the field, if they are genuinely independent of your work.
Who you should not. Anyone who helped with the project, anyone at your school who supervised you, or anyone with a stake in the outcome. Suggesting someone involved in the work is the thing that makes this mechanism go wrong.
What to ask the journal. Whether suggested reviewers are used in addition to independently assigned ones, or instead of them. That single question tells you what the review is actually worth, and the submissions page does not answer it.
How review works
Blind, and lightly described.
Authors must remove identifying information from the manuscript and submit a separate title page. The journal's metadata describes it as peer-reviewed.
What is not stated: how many reviewers see each paper, how they are selected, how long review takes, or what the decision categories are.
That puts SFJ with the majority of this category. Think.Check.Submit. tells authors to establish "independent/external reviewers, how many reviewers per paper," and the DOAJ sets two independent reviewers as its inclusion floor. Only JEI (8+ people in the pipeline) and IJHSR ("two or more outside reviewers") publish a figure that clearly meets it.
The publishing terms
Better than you might expect, and worth reading.
Articles are published under a CC BY 4.0 licence. Authors retain copyright; the journal receives exclusive publishing rights. Submitted work must not have been published before or be under review elsewhere — the standard rule everywhere, and the reason you cannot submit to two journals at once.
Retaining copyright under an open licence means you can reuse your own work freely, including in a university application portfolio. Not every venue in this category is this clear about it.
The journal runs on UBC's Open Journal Systems platform, which is the same infrastructure many university-published journals use. No DOI claim and no indexing claim appear on the submissions page, so do not assume either.
Should you submit?
Yes, if you have a literature review or a viewpoint piece and want a venue that explicitly takes them, you can pay $400 CAD or secure a waiver, and you can put together a credible reviewer list.
Think harder if the acceptance fee would be a problem. Being accepted and then unable to publish is a worse position than being rejected. Establish the waiver terms first.
Look elsewhere if you want a published reviewer count. IJHSR states "two or more outside reviewers" and charges $350 on acceptance with a documented scholarship route; JEI charges $49 upfront, refuses to expedite for any reason, and puts 8+ people on each paper.
Our comparison of every student research venue sets fees, reviewer counts and deadlines side by side, and what happens after you submit covers the months that follow.
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 Publication Fellowship is £3,400, roughly $4,400, and is built around getting a project to submission standard.
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, and we do not use paid expediting anywhere.
The reviewer-list requirement is one of the few places where a mentor adds something concrete — knowing who works in a subfield is exactly what a PhD candidate has and a sixth-former does not. That said, an author of a paper you cited is a perfectly good suggestion, and finding three takes an afternoon.
The two emails to send before submitting
What is the waiver or discount, and what do I need to prove to get it?
And: are suggested reviewers used in addition to independently assigned reviewers, or instead of them?
Neither answer is on the site, and both change what submitting here is worth.
Frequently asked questions
What does the STEM Fellowship Journal publish?
Four types: Original Investigations containing experimental data or collected information reporting novel results, Review Articles providing a critical synthesis of an area, Viewpoint Articles addressing controversial topics, and Conference Proceedings containing abstracts from presentations and posters. The viewpoint category is rare in this sector.
Does it charge a fee?
Nothing at submission. On acceptance, authors must either attach proof of a discount or waiver, or agree to pay 'a $400 CAD fee to publish the manuscript upon acceptance'. Discount and waiver amounts are not published, so ask before you submit rather than after you are accepted.
What is the peer reviewer list?
Authors must provide a Peer Reviewer List alongside the manuscript. Suggesting reviewers is normal practice in academic publishing, where authors know their field's specialists. For a school student it is harder, and it is worth asking the journal how suggested names are used and whether independent reviewers are also assigned.
Is review blind?
Yes. Authors must remove identifying information from the manuscript and submit a separate title page. The journal does not state how many reviewers see each paper or how long review takes, which are the two figures Think.Check.Submit. tells authors to establish.
Who owns the work after publication?
You do. Articles are published under a CC BY 4.0 licence, authors retain copyright, and the journal receives exclusive publishing rights. Work must not have been published before or be under review elsewhere, which is the standard rule across academic publishing.
Can I submit a literature review?
Yes — Review Articles are one of the four accepted types. That puts SFJ in the minority alongside NHSJS, the Columbia Junior Science Journal, IJHSR and the Oxford Journal of Student Scholarship. Vanderbilt's Young Scientist Journal and the Journal of Emerging Investigators both take original research only.