Peer Review Process
JYD uses a double-blind peer-review process, in which reviewers do not know the identity of the authors, and the identity of the reviewers is not revealed to the authors. JYD aims to complete the review process and provide feedback to authors within twelve weeks of submission.
Manuscripts judged to be of potential interest to our readership are sent out for formal review, typically to two or three reviewers. Reviewers rate submissions on criteria including:
- Significance of Topic: Articles should address topics that are relevant for and important to JYD readers. They should address key issues of youth development practice and/or research.
- Originality: Articles should introduce new and innovative work and ideas. They should add to existing knowledge of best practice, research or theory.
- Theoretical Foundation: Research questions should be theory-predicated, and discussion of findings should advance theory.
- Methodological Rigor: Articles should meet high standards of methodological rigor, using credible valid, and reliable methods that align with theory-predicated research questions.
- Coherence of Writing: Articles should be clear, organized, and well-developed. They should make sense, be well written, and easy for JYD readers to understand.
- Application for Practice: Articles should have clear implications for practice that are useful, realistic, and relevant for practitioners' consideration.
- I.D.E.A.S. Framework (Inclusivity, Diversity, Equity, Access, and the Supports needed) – Articles should show evidence that authors have considered issues of inclusivity, diversity, equity, access, and the supports needed as described at the bottom of this page.
The editors then make a decision based on reviewer recommendations by selecting from five possible actions:
- Accept Submission: manuscript accepted as submitted.
- Accept submission with minor revisions: manuscript will be accepted pending minor revisions.
- Minor revisions required for acceptance: manuscript may be accepted pending minor revisions. Another review may be required.
- Major revisions required for acceptance: manuscript may be accepted pending major revisions. Another review may be required.
- Reject Submission: manuscript not accepted for publication
Using the I.D.E.A.S. Framework to Advance JYD’s Commitment to Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion in the Peer Review Process
JYD has long sought to bridge research and practice using ideas from studies, programs, and practices to better understand youth development. We now recognize that we must seek to do so moving forward with a renewed awareness and a stronger commitment to more fully include and represent the diversity of youth in America and address issues of equity and access more directly and fully. JYD’s Diversity, Equity and Inclusion Committee has developed this series of resources to bring this commitment into the everyday operations of the journal. In particular, we seek to maximize I.D.E.A.S. – Inclusivity, Diversity, Equity, Access, and the Supports needed to make them real for authors, reviewers, editors and the leadership of the journal. We believe that naming and implementing these elements and making them central to how we operate are necessary to the transformation of our understanding of the full range of youth and their developmental journeys. JYD remains committed to a full open access* approach to publishing that has no fees for either authors or readers. Furthermore, we actively seek to support new authors from underserved and underrepresented communities as well as practitioners and others new to publishing.
The Five Elements of the I.D.E.A.S Framework
- I for INCLUSIVITY – JYD seeks to ensure all youth, all contexts, and all perspectives on youth development have a respected and valued place in the journal.
- D for DIVERSITY – JYD recognizes and values the full range and variety of diversity of young people and their contexts – all types and kinds including but not limited to age, racial, cultural, gender, sexual orientation, ability, culture, faith/spirituality, nationality, wealth, education, and immigration status.
- E for EQUITY – JYD recognizes the variety of inequities in our society historically and currently and seeks to publish and promote equity through awareness, evidence, and theoretical and practice based perspectives using a social justice and anti-racism lens.
- A for ACCESS – JYD understands that access to opportunities, their quality implementation, and supportive developmental relationships matter for all youth and they also matter for both authors and readers.
- S for the SUPPORTS needed to make these efforts come to life and become implemented and lived effectively. JYD is committed not only to these ideals but to creating the resources and opportunities that bring them to life.
I.D.E.A.S. Framework General Expectations for Authors
Authors submitting articles for consideration in JYD are expected to be aware of and explicit about whether and how their articles handle issues of inclusion, diversity, equity and access.
This includes, but is not limited to, the following:
- Make clear in the cover letter and in the article itself how the author’s identities relate to the topic and/or participants - particularly race, ethnicity, and gender orientation where applicable.
- Frame issues from a strength or asset-based perspective rather than primarily a deficit approach.
- Seek to include and elevate nondominant voices as they frame their work and its implications and as reflected in their references and citations.
- Richly describe the contexts and populations studied or referenced.
- Define race and other aspects of diversity contextually, economically, and conceptually not just as a trait or category – this includes examining differences in context, SES, and other factors, not just differences in outcomes.
- Provide justification and discussion of the lack of diversity in study samples with predominantly White participants.
- Provide information on race and other diversity factors or explain reasons for their absence.
- Discuss the appropriateness and applicability of the approach to data gathering and types of data used to ground the research and practice questions being asked and the populations studied.
- Examine results in ways that do not overemphasize mean differences between groups but also their similarities and the variability and differences within each group.
- Discuss the representativeness of the data and explicitly address the limits of its applicability and generalizability including the application of findings to under-represented and non-White populations. This includes discussion of how the diversity and context of the sample may impact findings and their implications for practice and policy, particularly issues of equity.
- Where applicable, address applications of work to non-White populations and social inequality and explicitly consider demographic characteristics of the United States and report on how research samples compare to national statistics when appropriate.
- Where applicable, include relevant DEI topics as keywords