Submission goes to a desk screen first, where most rejections happen and happen fast. Papers that clear it go to one or two reviewers for weeks. The four possible letters are Accept, Minor Revisions, Major Revisions and Reject — and Major Revisions, which feels like failure, is the normal good outcome.
The submit button is where most guides stop. What follows is three to six months of a process nobody explains, and the stages are more predictable than they look.
Stage 1: the desk screen (days to two weeks)
An editor reads your paper before any reviewer sees it, and decides whether it is worth reviewing at all.
This is where most rejections happen and where they happen fastest. NHSJS states its initial editorial screening takes one to two weeks.
The three things that fail here are all avoidable:
| Reason | What it looks like | How to avoid it |
|---|---|---|
| Scope | A literature review at a journal publishing only original research | Check what the venue publishes before writing |
| Format | Missing abstract, too few figures, wrong structure | Read the guidelines; NHSJS wants five or more figures in a research article |
| No finding | A well-written summary with nothing new in it | Make sure your paper contains a number nobody has published |
A desk rejection stings because it is fast and impersonal. It is also the cheapest possible failure — you have lost two weeks rather than four months.
Stage 2: reviewer assignment and review (weeks to months)
The editor sends your paper to people qualified to judge it, and then waits, because reviewers are volunteers with their own deadlines.
How many people see it varies, and the number matters. NHSJS sends papers that clear screening to "one or two qualified peer reviewers" plus a member of its Scientist Advisory Board. The Journal of Emerging Investigators states that more than eight individuals are involved across its pipeline. The Journal of Student Research describes double-blind review but does not say how many reviewers.
Think.Check.Submit. tells authors to establish "independent/external reviewers, how many reviewers per paper," and the DOAJ sets at least two independent reviewers as its floor for inclusion. One reviewer is a thinner process than two, and it is worth knowing which you are in.
Timelines, where published:
| Journal | Initial decision |
|---|---|
| NHSJS | 8 weeks median; 95% within 14 weeks |
| Journal of Student Research | 12–24 weeks |
| Columbia Junior Science Journal | Fixed rounds: quarterfinalists October, finalists December |
| Journal of Emerging Investigators | Not published |
Nothing happens that you can influence during this period. Checking the portal daily is a well-known waste of a term.
Stage 3: the decision letter
Four possibilities, and students consistently misread the third.
Accept. Rare on a first submission. It means minimal changes and a publication date.
Minor Revisions. Good news. Fix the specific things listed, usually in a couple of weeks, and it goes through.
Major Revisions. This is the normal good outcome for a first paper and it does not feel like one. It means the work is publishable and is not publishable yet. Reviewers have found something structural — an uncontrolled confounder, an overreaching conclusion, a methods section too vague to follow. Most published papers passed through this stage. NHSJS allows about four weeks for a revision cycle.
Reject. It is over at that venue. The reasons still matter, because they tell you what to fix before submitting elsewhere.
The emotional trap is reading Major Revisions as a soft rejection. It is the opposite: the journal has decided your work is worth the reviewers' further time.
Stage 4: responding to reviewers
Respond to every point, including the ones you disagree with.
The convention is a response letter that walks through each comment in turn, says what you changed, and points to where. For points you are not accepting, say so and give the reason. "We have not added the additional control variable because it is not available in this dataset; we have instead noted this as a limitation on page 7" is a perfectly good answer.
What does not work is silence. A revision that quietly skips four comments reads as though you did not read them, and reviewers notice because they wrote them.
Two practical notes. Reviewers often contradict each other; when they do, pick one, say why, and move on. And where a reviewer has misunderstood your paper, that is usually a signal the paper was unclear rather than that the reviewer was careless — fix the writing rather than defending it.
Stage 5: acceptance, proofs and the DOI
If it goes through, there is a short administrative tail.
You will be sent proofs — the typeset version — to check. Read them properly; typesetting introduces errors, especially in tables and equations. This is your last chance to fix anything.
Then, depending on the venue, your paper gets a DOI. JEI assigns them. JSR assigns them through Crossref under prefix 10.47611. CJSJ and NHSJS make no DOI claim, which means your paper lives at a web address that may or may not exist in four years.
Also worth knowing: Iowa State's predatory-publishing guidance lists false indexing claims among the warning signs. JEI states plainly that "JEI articles are not indexed," and that honesty is worth more than a long list of harvesters that index most of the open web regardless of quality.
The rules nobody tells you
One journal at a time. Simultaneous submission is treated as serious misconduct across academic publishing, student journals included. Submit, wait, and only go elsewhere after a decision.
Do not buy speed. Several venues sell expedited review — NHSJS at $280, JSR at $300 plus a service fee. The joint COPE, DOAJ, OASPA and WAME principles state at Principle 13 that "author fees or waiver status should not influence editorial decision making." If your deadline is too close for honest review, submit next cycle and describe the work as in progress, which is an ordinary thing for a researcher to say.
Keep your data and code. Reviewers ask. So do interviewers, eighteen months later, when you have forgotten which extract you used.
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 say so before a student starts rather than after a decision arrives.
The stage above where a mentor genuinely helps is the revision round, because responding to reviewers is a skill nobody is taught. Everything before that you can do alone, and our complete guide to publishing sets out the whole route.
While you wait
Start the next thing.
The single most common pattern in student research is one paper submitted and four months spent refreshing a portal. The students who get somewhere submit, open a new dataset the following week, and find out the decision while already working on something else.
Frequently asked questions
How long before I hear anything?
An initial editorial screen usually takes one to two weeks, and that is the first thing you will hear about. NHSJS publishes 1–2 weeks for screening and 8 weeks median to a full initial decision, with 95% of papers decided within 14 weeks. The Journal of Student Research states 12 to 24 weeks. JEI publishes no timeline at all.
What does 'Major Revisions' mean?
It means the work is publishable and is not publishable yet — which is the normal good outcome for a first paper, not a failure. Reviewers have found things that must change before it can appear. Most published papers passed through this stage. Treat it as a long to-do list rather than a verdict.
Can I submit to two journals at once?
No. Simultaneous submission is treated as serious misconduct across academic publishing, student journals included, and being caught ends your relationship with both venues. Submit to one, wait for the decision, and submit elsewhere only after a rejection.
What is a desk rejection?
A rejection before anyone reviews the science — usually within days. The commonest causes are scope (a literature review sent to a journal that only publishes original research), missing required sections, or a format requirement you did not meet. Almost all of these are avoidable by reading the submission guidelines first.
Do I have to do everything the reviewers say?
No, but you have to respond to everything they say. Where you disagree, say so with a reason in your response letter. A revision addressing eight of ten comments and arguing the other two is normal practice; one that silently skips four looks like you did not read them.
What if I am rejected?
Read the reasons, fix what is fixable, and submit elsewhere. A rejection at one venue is not a verdict on the work — journals differ in scope, and the commonest reason for student rejection is a mismatch rather than a quality problem. Do not pay anyone to make it faster the second time.