Famous Poker Players Named Phil, Pet Friendly Duplex For Rent In San Jose, Ca, Shooting In Malvern Arkansas, Benton County Iowa Accident Reports, Muncie Star Press Car Accident, Articles E

Bad experience. Strongly recommend submitting there. Desk rejection by QJE does not convey the quality of the paper. Very good reports, very effective handling of the editor. Helpful comments. Very long time for first response. Good communication and seemed very efficient. PhD Program Administrator: Mirtha Cabello, cabello@bu.edu, (617) 353-4454. Job Market | MIT Economics Overall good experience. 1 suggested r&r other reject, AE decided to reject--fair decision. The AE also provided his own review. This? Split decision between R&R and reject, editor took reject. Editor finds it interesting but not enough for a "general journal". Was pleased with the process, besides the rejection. Editor read the paper, added some comments of her own. Very good referee report. Very bad experience, I have lost more than 9 months and it costs USD250. Reasonable requestsfor the R&R. I assume he did not like the topic at the end. Liked the paper but contribution too small. oh they're good! My experience with other journals when there is only 1 referee, the editor always provides a report detailing their reasons for accepting or rejecting the paper. Very efficient process. He recommended me to send it to a more specialized field journal. That is not cool. Horioka the editor. Desk rejected within two weeks. Nice experience. Journal of Economics and Management Strategy. Quick process, very solid reports and editor comments. Also sent some emails to the editors but have no replies. Unprofessional and incorrect comments by co-editor Rob Simmons. Would submit again. Very poor quality referee report after waiting for more than 7 months. Tough referee process, won over 3, 4th still had doubts but Editor pushed ahead. Best experience in my long career (20+ years, 10+ top publications). Portuguese Economic Journal* Great process. After submitting revisions, 1 month until final decision to accept with no other edits. "Although interesting and competently executed, your study does not contain a sufficient theoretical or empirical innovation that would meet the very high standards of the EER." Horrible editorial process. good comments, a nice experience even though the outcome was a rejection. Very pleasant experience. Desk reject two days after I submitted the manuscript. The assigned editor did not reply to emails about progress until I contacted the Editoral Manager. Isnt it written that this journal focuses on mathematical reasoning instead of sticking to conventional setup? Accepted 1 1/2 weeks after revision was submitted. The editor comes up with a nonsensical (literally non-sensical) explanation rejecting the paper. Two helpful reports. No refund. The report seemed to be more appropriate for a revise and resubmit. Two ref reports in 8 days. Editor misread the title and barely read the abstract. 1 short report (but good points) and 1 very long report. No helpful comments, just said it was not fit for a general interest journal. A drawback is that it takes time. Nice editor message. Had a theory paper accepted to AER earlier this months overcoming mostly negative reviewers. Very quick handeling, decent reports. 2 referees clearly read the paper and made some good and insightful comments. Would be happy with desk reject, but not with waiting 16 months to read a 5 page article. Very helpful comments. Katz rejected in four hours after carefully confirming author affiliations. One week to accept. Good experience. Overall good experience. Two reports: one insightful (R&R recommendation), the other recommended reject ("contribution is too small"). First two reports were "not general interest enough" and didn't have much to say substantively as a result (1-2 pages). After about 1 year of wait, the editor decided to reject the submission on the basis of 1 report (2 referees did not respond) that contained only 2-3 lines that already work was done on the topic (although appreciating the empirical analysis). 2.5 are very positive. Recommended. Very good experience: I wish all my rejected submissions were as fast and polite. short straightforward paper, should take max 2 hours to read carefully,still under review, editor (Hall) non-responsive, waiting 30 months for response, editor not responding to inquiries. Almost 8 months to acceptance, despite Revised version submitted after 5months. The Editor does appologize on the long delay saying one referee did not provide the report. The editor said some good words but also said he could not turn over the recommendation. the website was hackedthe report was good, and the associate editor is very nice. One report was very useful. One ref report with extremely constructive criticisms. The editor (Ravikumar) gave me an R&R with reasonable requirements. Some interesting comments, but not much. One magnificient + one so-so ref report. Rejected by Katz, with comments, in less than 8 hours. Fast and fair enough. less than 2 weeks, recommended field journal. AER Insights: Generic rejection without any thought or suggestion. Referees mostly wanted me to provide more background and a deeper policy discussion. One good report, the other one poor. The equation to be estimated is not well explained and basic econometric issues (e.g., the problems related to the inclusion of lagged dependent variables) are not discussed. Editor seemed not to have read the paper. AER:Insights - Larry Samuelson, Very polite, slightly more than standard rejection letter, saying - not a good fit, although enjoyable. One synthetic but straight to the point referee report, asking for very specific and reasonable corrections to the paper. A bit slow, but kindly acknowledged by the editor. Frustrating. The AEA provides a guide to the job market process created by John Cawley. Poor. Both reports are not really useful. Competition and Markets Authority (CMA)Belfast, Cardiff, Edinburgh, London, Manchester - UK, Predoctoral Fellow And he did not find the topic interesting. Reports have very clear constructive instructions and fast response. Unfortunately, they called out the problems that I was already aware of / do not have a good way of fixing. We did. Desk rejected the next day. THREE MONTHS! Incredible experience: one of the referee report told us that a working paper was published on almost the same subject (and justifies our rejection) but this working paper was published 5 months after our submission ! ), Vienna University of Economics and Business, Ceccarelli (Zurich/Maastricht), Pitkjrvi (Aalto), Assistant Professor in Labor, Migration, and Racial Capitalism, Western University (formerly University of Western Ontario), Gallant (Toronto), Sullivan (Yale), Cui (UPenn), Choi (Wisconsin-Madison), Kahou (UBC), Hentall-MacCuish (UCL), Babalievsky (minnesota), Moszkowski (Harvard), Hong (Wisconsin-Madison), Pan (UT Austin), McCrary (UPenn), Gutierrez (University of Chicago), Kwon (Cornell), Zillessen (Oxford), Ba (UPenn), Assistant, Advanced Assistant, Associate, or Full Professor of Economics, E0 -- General F3 -- International Finance F4 -- Macroeconomic Aspects of International Trade and Fin. Other referee reports are okay, not very useful. The referee report was very poor. 2 weeks). Pretty bad experience. Post an advertisement. Water Research Manager (Project Manager) 2 referees were positive throughout the process, one was an outright acceptance. Good Experience. EconJobRumors .com, otherwise known as Economic Job Market Rumors or EJMR, is an internet forum for academic economists. Editor actually read the paper. 3 sentences total, six months. The paper was with the journal for five months and we got a rejection with only one referee report with 5 bullet points (two of which were about typos). had no economic relevance and was not worth being sent out to a referee. Felt somewhat subjective. Until the 1970s, junior economics hiring was largely by word of mouth. They just pocketed the submission fee. Quite fast luckily. Great judgment. In the first three, the referees took 3 months and tehn 9 months to take care of comments. The other referee was also good and liked the paper. No reason given for rejection, and no indication that the paper was actually read by anyone. I? Referee reports were lenthy and very useful. Got a rejection within a couple of days without any constructive comment. At least the fee is refunded. Three reports, two positive & on point; one negative & showing lack of understanding of structural modelling and estimation. Thank you for visiting the Department of Economics job market website. Submission refund. In the end the paper got much improved. Overall decent and professional expert reports. Not a good fit! Bad experience. Employers may also contact the students and their . The other report was useless. Desk-rejected in 3 days. 20 months to acceptance since first submission. Much improved paper. I am tempted to say: thank you for telling me what I already know very quick. Name Department Contact Subfield . The editor didn't bother to read through the lines of my responses to his previous reports to see how incompetent the referee is, or to look at the big picture and account also for the reports of other referees who wrote much more competent reports and had recommended acceptance several rounds earlier. Very good experience; desk reject with highly valuable and fair comments by the co-editor within 10 days. Was not worth waiting that long (this is an understatement). Got a form letter in 10 days. Desk rejected in the 24 hour window. Desk-rejected after one week without any substantial or specific comment, apart recommending to submit to a specialist journal. The whole process took about a little bit more than a year, which is very good. Club journal that accepts your paper if you have good ties to the editors. Insane process and utterly inexperienced referee. Rejected. I would submit again or recommend this outlet! Very good comments from both reviewers and the editor, Frank Sloan. Chat (0) Conferences. Don't know why Elsevier is silence about this behavior from Batten. no comments given. KS rejected based on AE's brief report; AE comments somewhat useful but a tad unfair (main criticism applies to many papers publ. The editor said the paper was too similar to another paper, which was not published and cannot be found online. She was formerly director of macroeconomic policy at the Washington Center for Equitable Growth, and a Section Chief at the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, where she worked in various capacities from 2007 to 2019. Got two negative referee reports, where one in very useful, and the other is moderately so. OK report. Rejected in 24 hrs, no reason given. Excellent communication with editor. I have been waiting for more than a year since submission. It took a long time to hear back from the first round. Fast and fair. desk rejected in 3 days. Don't submit here. President, University of Applied Sciences in Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany. Quite poor reviews (not helpful) so Editor gave lots of helpful guidance. The reviewer didn't even bother to read after page 8. Will never submit to Applied Economics any more.. Four months for one sloppy report full of referee noise. Avoid avoid avoid this outlet if you are looking for a serious journal that will follow a fair referee process. Much quicker response than suggestsed. Reason: "not enough general interest", nothing special. Really good experience, good comments and moved quickly through the process. Waste of submission fee. Incredibly tough process with three rounds of revisions - first round ended up me writing a response as long as the original paper. (Fair?) Unfortunately, this is my usual experience with EER. Referee's comment was useful but contained too many extensions. The second one was a "consultation by telephone" but no feedback to us. Lost more than 6 months for nothing. No feedback at all. This journal is a joke. Paper was long and too dispersed at first, but the managing editor (Baptista) liked it, and the reviewers asked for changes while being receptive. Received 1st response within a month with a very helpful referee report. Great comments from editor. Very disappointing experience. Revision accepted three hours after submission. The editor did not even realized this and rejected. After 12 months the paper was not even sent out to review or rejected despite 10 emails. two positive reports and one strongly negative report; the editor Andrew Street gave me a R&R; after I spent one month writing a 30-page response, the negative referee still argued against my paper based on his misunderstanding of my paper; the editor finally chose to reject my paper based on the comments of this referee without careful reading. Three mediocre reports. 2010 . 10 days for desk rejection decision. 7 months for 2 reviews (and one reviewer was already familiar with paper). Co editor rejected it. Desk rejected in two weeks. Editor rejected based on own concerns. Editor picked reasonable comments, asked to take into account suggestions, accepted the paper after the referees agreed that what I did is reasonable. Both only read half the manuscript and criticized the toy model that motivated the novel techniques in the latter half. Would submit here again. frustrating, because paper not assigned to the editor who works in my field. Very pleasant experience! Very efficient and fast. One report useless, read only the first quarter of the paper. I expected better from this journal. The third one very general and less useful. Terribly disappointing experience. Generally not 5-star experience but worth submitting there if your paper is relevant. Two very poor referee reports. Avoid if possible. Fast desk reject (1 week from submission). Worked butt off to respond to them. Helpful comments from referees and relatively fast. Very bad reports from non economists. Copied and pasted the comments, some of which were not even relevant for the current version of the the paper. unreasonable report, the referee imposed a t-stat of at least 5 or 6 for an empirical study. Excellent handling. Nice comments and feedback from Associate Editor. Editor clearly read a good deal of the paper and his comments were as helpful as the median referee report. The paper is not GREAT enough for AEJ Micro!!! the comment above was for another journals. EJM - Econ Job Market Received 3 high-quality referee reports within 4 months. Process a bit slow. Won't be doing that again Actually, it was a Reject and Resubmit because the editor liked the paper, but the reviewer was really harsh and not really understood the paper. No surprising, but referee report was sloppy and incorrect. What is left to say? Quick and professional handling by the editor. I haven't received the first response yet. Candidate Job Market Roster. An associate editor left some comments, which showed that they read at least some of the paper. Neither of the two reviewers seemed t have read the paper. 4.5 weeks to desk reject. Great experience. Interesting but not a good fit. never submit to this journal again. The paper was accepted after one round of submission. Very useful comments. Placements of Recent Economics Graduates. Seriously, avoid this journal. Proved to be quite true. Fairly long wait though. I got two rounds of R&R. Both suggested rejection. Basically max 3-month turnaround from their side at any stage. be viewed as too specific. Generic letter from editor. 1 reject and 1 R&R. Waste of time. Expected at least some referee reports but got a bad match editor-wise. Very happy with experience so far. Good experience. The positive report points out more contributions than we claim. Aarhus University, Department of Economics and Business Economics, School of Business and Social Sciences: Eric Hillebrand http://econ.au.dk/job-market-candidates . Quick responds. Will never submit again. Very useful comments which helped improve the paper substantially. great referee report, great editor, not so great AE, Two good reports providing many suggestions regarding how I should modify and extend the paper. Six weeks for response. Reject and resubmit. The bar is high for Exp Econ. Will probably not be using this journal again. The paragraph/comment not constructive. desk reject in 2.5 hrs? I knew I shot too high. A couple nice comments from Shleifer after two days. Excellent referees too, no nitpicking, focused on contribution. Disappointed with the result, but the experience was okay. Very slow process but happy to get accepted. Two reviewers recommended rejection. The co-editor was very efficient and apparently read the paper. Four refereed. EconJobRumors - EverybodyWiki Bios & Wiki After revision was done the AE decided to reject without sending to referees! Poorly managed. The paper is now much stronger. Two referee reports; one high quality, one very low quality. Two short ones that showed no effort whatsoever. Very poor referee reports. He did read the paper and provided valid concerns on identification. 1 serious person pushing his method. This was the worst referee report ever. 2 referee reports. It is not very clear why it got rejected at the end (I guess referees recommended rejection but thsi was not stated in their reports so it coudl have been the editor who thought it was difficut to get published given the work needed). Generic rejection. Nice experience despite a rejection. Too slow. Referee reject after more than a year. Was not notified by the decision through email, found the decision in manuscript central during a random check. Got the refund soon after request. Desk reject took four days. Very useful suggestions by the editor who read the paper carefully. Enough said. One quite short referee report. Referees' comments were useful. Quick and well handled by the editor. Paper was not a fit so got rejection in 3 days. Editor not helpful at all. (This would have been easy to see from reading the intro before sending this to reviewers why not desk-reject instead of wasting author and reviewer time?). According to the editor, the paper has some merit, but is too specialized for EL. Said the contribution was too small, which I accept. The top traffic source to econjobrumors.com is Direct traffic, driving 56.39% of desktop visits last month, and Organic Search is the 2nd with 42.93% of traffic. Another desk reject at AEJ: Policy. Pathetic Three reports, one good report the other two average. One very helpful referee report, 2 not so helpful. Desk rejection after hefty submission fee. Nine months to one terrible report that had a lot of BLOCK CAPITALS and underlines. Both reports made non-sense suggestions (not sure if read through), editor did not read the article. Glad that they didn't waste my time. Vastly improved the paper but had to submit elsewhere. Sad experience not for the first time with this journal. However comments from the negative one are the most detailled and helpful. (2 very good reports, and 1 did not understand the paper and went full on complaint). "In order to speed up and improve the submission process for both authors and referees, we have raised the number of papers that we reject without seeking reports.". Long process but well worth it! Two referees in the first round, good comments. Reviewer comments not helpful and very difficult to understand. If the editor tought the paper did not fit the scope of the journal, he should have rejected it at the very beginning of the process, without engaging in a peer-review. The report had a few good notes but none that really seemed to disqualify the paper from getting an R&R. One good report who saw potential and offered advice, one who just didn't like the idea. Weird editor pushing for a change in the results. Editor rejected, but I have a feeling that both refs recommended R&R for different reasons. Got 3 ref reports - 1 RR 2 reject. The other was much more careful. Both reviewers were positive suggested R&R. Paid $100 to read "that the Journal of Public Economics can only accept about 10 percent of the submissions for publication. I do not think that the referee understood my paper. Anti-intellectual reasoning. The AE finally conceded that I was right and the referee was wrong - but decided to reject the paper anyway! one ok report, one very hostile. Third referee was slow and did not provide public report (he caused the delay). Took way too long prob will avoid in future. Got two most useless reports ever. Rejected after 2 weeks. They desk rejected a paper that had been previously accepted for review at much better journals. However, he said they cannot consider the paper for publication because it is not about Canada. American Economic Association 5 months for a desk reject! 3 years for a desk rejection, after sending them at least 6 emails and filing a complain with the publisher. Desk rejection based on lack of fit, altough there were at least 4 papers published on the same topic in previous years. 1 Month for a desk reject of a paper which was under review much higher ranked journals. Editor slept on the paper's submission history and the reviewer's dishonesty. Rather slow desk reject. Good reports. Every time I'm impressed by how precise the reviews and suggestions are. The literature review was complete! Our 2022-23 placement director is Professor Jim Andreoni ( andreoni@ucsd.edu). Editor also read the paper and took the call - explained that the paper was better suited at a good field journal given referee assessments of contribution to literature. Quick desk rejection; field journals recommende, Rejected within one week, but useful comments and advice given by editor, Uhlig, justified decison with kind and informed letter from the editor. quick decision by the editor. Desk rejection in 3 days. OK process, but some reports were useless. 1 paragraph of superficial non-descriptive comments from each ref, One week to desk reject with no comment at all. REHO is a scam, not a journal. Two short referee reports straight to the point. Otherwise, great experience. The paper was under minor revisions. Two horribly low quality reports. Editor gave a short summary of two sentences of the paper, mentioned three additional recent articles from the literature, and suggested an alternative journal. Not sure whether it should be called "desk rejection" as the editor said he asked a friend who is an expert in the field to review my paper rather than sending it to referees. 20 Feb 2023. Referee 1 happy with resubmission (no further comments), referee 2 suggested rejection or major rewriting. two weeks for a desk rejection, with a 50 percent refunds of the submission fee. Editor said he is sorry for the wait still waiting for the outcome of the second round. One referee was thoughtful and recommended acceptance; Second referee asked for more results; AE agreed with the 1st referee. Mildly positive referees but reject nonetheless. Waste of the submission fee. Seemed not to like the idea of the paper without actually reading it. That thing (s)he claimed was wrong was in fact trivially correct, but the referee was completely clueless. 14 months from submission to publication online. Overall, good experience with IREF. Health economics, Applied . Unfortunately paper was assigned to handling editor who was on study leave. Took a while, but great experience overall. Turnaround times are reasonable though. Very professional way of handling the process, Very helpful report which has permitted to increase the quality of the paper. After 10 months, my manuscript was still listed as "awaiting referee assignment", and no one at the journal would respond to my e-mails about the paper, so I withdrew it. American Economic Journal: Applied Economics. Overall good experience. Faculty of Economics Austin . Somewhat useful comments from Department Editor. Fair decision. Worst experience so far in my career. Editor chose to follow the suggestion of the AE. Very bad reports. Sad result, but not unfair appraisal. Avoid at all costs. Two referee reports, each was half a page with very general comments about the lack of contribution to a general readership. desk rejection within 1 week. Desk reject after few days with some useful suggestions. The other review was somewhat on point in its criticism, though I can'r give him/her the credit as the shortcoming was itself mentioned in the paper. Also revisions handled quite efficiently! Editor was super helpful. Both referees clearly read the paper and discussed potential concerns of the analysis. Desk rejected in two hours with a polite email that basically said "your methodology is wrong and your question is wrong." Focus of decision appeared to be on the institutional context of the paper rather than considering the economics. For three months the editor has not assigned referees! 2 months for desk rejection is awkward. A colleague from another school submitted there and also had to wait a long time for very poor quality referee reports. Wasn't my target journal but I'll take the pub in a recognizable outlet. 50% of Americans believe US should support Ukraine 'as long as it takes