Very long (2 years), costly, inconsistent, unprofessional process. The editor informed us that the contribution of the paper was not high enough for this journal although the topic has been examined in the past by other papers in this Journal. 2 weeks (Comment by the editor constructive and helpful). Brief comments from the editor. Paper got rejected but everything else about submitting to this journal was more than satisfactory. Nedless to say I got no referee report even after asking. 1 good, 1 okay and one bad review. Two rounds of R&R! Journal of Business Finance and Accounting. Very good experience. Some useful comments, most misreads and poor understanding of model. Quick response with 2 good reports and clear editor comments. Editor read the paper too and added some short comments. Four months for one sloppy report full of referee noise. Osbourne rejected following a 6-7 line bs report by adding his own very cheap comments. Extremely constructive and useful comments, clearly from people from diverse backgrounds who engaged deeply with the paper (2 economists, 1 polsci). Desk reject in 24hrs with a clear and useful message from the editor(David Figlio). After more data were collected, the editor said "a referee suggested empirical work was not serious enough." interesting and polite reports. Very quick and extremely professional. Ex: CDF was derived to construct the likelihood of a discrete choice model, a reviewer writes the author does not use the derived CDF. Although QJE may be one of the oldest professional journal of economics published in the English language, it is also stale. Pleasantly surprised by the quality of referee report. The second one gave it away that he didn't even try to understand what I wrote. Got the reports after 6 weeks in both rounds. Dest rejected in 2 days. Fast turn around. Under one month for one very brief report saying not good enough for the journal and a completely indecipherable AE report. Third referee was slow and did not provide public report (he caused the delay). only one report on first submission, 4 months for second round. Journal of the European Economic Association. Quick response within three days. AE rejected without commenting on referee report, At least a quick report with one good comment that can help to improve the paper, but with the other points highlighted by the referee were discussed in the paper. 2 very good reports and one poor report. The editor said there was issues with finding referees. Unbelievably fast process, tough-but-fair referee notes that improved the paper. Finance Job Rumors (489,486) General Economics Job Market Discussion (729,772) Micro Job Rumors (15,235) Macro Job Rumors (9,803) European Job Market (101,012) China Job Market (103,527) Industry Rumors (40,348) Good quality reports for a low-ranked journal, though. Referees reasons to reject the paper are not convincing enough. Editor said he appreciated the previous paper but seemed to reject this one (which is probably better) since it fits in with a similar literature. Rejected within two weeks. All editors have lined up to publish their own papers (just see the forthcoming papers, 3 (three!!) This journal is a joke. Referred to field, seems editor at least scanned and maybe even read the whole thing. I mentioned that point multiple times in the intro and lit review). The referee reports were received by the ediotr roughly a month before a decision was made. One referee report after 11 months. One good quality report suggesting minor revisions after 1 month. One helpful (though very demanding) report, the second so-so. Clearly he had read the paper. Fair decision and process, 2 mildly positive reviews, editor shot it down. I was very grateful despite the rejection. Wouldn't submit here again. Good report. Worst experience ever. After R&R, the referee required one more round of revision. Fast desk reject. 20 months for this type of journal is super long. Serrano accepted the paper a couple of days after resubmission. Waste my time. Not sure what the editor(s) are doing at this journal but whatever it is, it is not quality overseeing and editing of papers. Although the suggested changes would have made the paper way too long for an EL pub. A serious fraud: Fake JF and RFS conditional acceptances, "Leftover women" problem hits US dating market, New "Family Ruptures" AER / NBER is rip-off of obscure paper, Schiraldi (LSE) and Seiler (Stanford) false coauthors of AER publication, Economics Job Market Rumors | Job Market | Conferences | Employers | Journal Submissions | Links | Privacy | Contact | Night Mode, Optimization-Conscious Econometrics Summer School, Political Economy of International Organization (PEIO). He took the report and sent out a generic rejection letter. I only regret not withdrawing this. Editor was Imran Rasul, extremely professional and competent. Editor overturned referee's decisions with poor justification. To get rejected in a good journal, that is ok since it is part of the business but waiting 10 moths for refereee reports of that quality was a really bad deal. Very bad experience as referee kept asking for more and more and finally said document was now too long and findings not interesting enough. I don't know what to add. Desk rejected in 2 days with a very short report "better fit for a finance journal". However, I did pay and forward teh receipt as evidence. The new editor rejected the paper 2 days after submitted it. Would submit again. Second round 4 months before acceptance. Very efficient. One excellent referee report, one terrible. Editor suggested JIE. One quite short referee report. Sounds fair. Desk reject after about 2 weeks; friendly letter, not sufficiently novel enough (which is fair, not my best paper, IJIO 4th shot, paper now at 2nd tier field). Finance Job Rumors (489,527) General Economics Job Market Discussion (729,815) Micro Job Rumors (15,246) Macro Job Rumors (9,803) European Job Market (101,029) China Job Market (103,535) Industry Rumors (40,351) The editor's letter was well-written. Took a while, but great experience overall. Some of the most useful and thorough referee reports I've gotten. Desk rejected in 6 days with no explanation. Waited for almost a year and sent a couple of emails to the editor; promised us a response in two weeks. Two fantastic referee reports within 1.5 months. Horrible process. However, everything was fixed, and overall I am happy. Very long process. Fair and constructive comments. Referees mostly wanted me to provide more background and a deeper policy discussion. Helpful comments from referees and editor. Total waste of time. Efficient process, stuck to advertised timings. Overall good experience. Notice that I submitted there on the basis of the widely publicized (EEA Gothenburg) fastness of this journal. Somewhat useful comments from Department Editor. Kohlhase). Very fast process. Editor desk-rejected in 1 day. The report was very entensive and it required a lot of extra work but it was insightful as well (however, as always, we had to compromise in some things we were not fully convinced the referee was right). Positive feedback from the editor. Good report. Well argued rejection with helpful comments. Good for knowing what people didn't like, but not clear how to improve. Referee one was inexpert in the field, and suggested we cite mostly irrelevant papers published by the handling editor. Terrible referee did not understand LATE and simply could not be satisfied. Would surely submit to it again. Heard nothing and received no replies to my emails. No comment from the editor, 1 referee report by an idiot that just filled three pages with garbage to look like a better referee; other report was better but still not nearly as smart as QJE referees. Silly comments from AE. Got response approx. Two short referee reports straight to the point. 48 hour DR, no particular comments from Shleifer except interesting paper, suggest AEJ:applied. Also good editing support. "I acknowledge the contribution, but I don't like it". Editor agreed to R&R and suggested major changes but then didn't like the resulting paper. They were polite in point out a crucial mistake at the beginning of the paper were a new theoretical model was presented. One referee was amazing, the other one added no value. Excellent editor, balanced referees and good timing. Helpful and doable things. Armstrong is so much better than Hermalin 6 months for the first R&R (2 referee reports plus a very detailed report from the editor), then 3 months for the 2nd R&R, then the paper was accepted. Two rounds of R&R, final acceptance after second round within 5 days. Editor agreed with them. Took about 2.5-3 months for first response which detailed a lot of work - two R & R decisions, each of which took about 2 months for referees to get back on. Suggested to submit to a good journal. After that, the R&R only took 10 days and we also tackled a minor comment from the editor. Relatively quick turnaround, but, reports were not particularly helpful. One report very useful, and the other two not that much. Absolutely idiotic low-quality comments. Editor Chandra took four months to desk reject a straightforward empirical paper. Rejected by editor with a comment that referees might not like the paper, Desk rejected after 1 month without any comments. four reports. Reasonable. Not a fit to the journal! Good report from reviewers. Rejected in 10 days with no comments. Asim I. Khwaja editor, Two out of three referee reports were good one was much less. Just the process of having the paper withdrawn took 2 months. Pretty smooth process, with Eric Leeper being very kind and helpful. is ?so ?poor? So-so report. Accepted two weeks after r&r. Fair reports, fast response from editors once resubmitted. My paper was not complicated and could have been rejected in 2-3 months easily. In reality, the paper is poorly motivated and the link between the model and the anecdotal evidence discussed in the introduction is not clear. 2 Weeks. Waste of the submission fee. Good handling by the editor. Tough revisions, but very fair. Long waiting for 10 months, send 3 emails to ask, reply: under review, some useful comments from ref despite recommending reject. Good experience, Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics. Second round--took less than a month to get 2 detailed second reports from referees--impressive! Lazy editor, takes weeks to send paper out to reviewers or hand out a decision. Unhappy with the outcome of course, but pleased with the process and the handling. One week to accept. Good referees but long process: 3 rounds /16 months, Very hard to respond but comments significantly improved the paper, Took a long time, but referee reports were very useful and significantly improved the paper. Seems to be a fair process, 13 months for editor to desk reject because the paper has no empirical section, One good report, very constructive, the other one rejecting the paper. They have not released it, sorry. Not much to complain about. Took 4 months to report that the article was not a good fit and return without reports. 1 report ok, the other one awful, Referee clearly did not understand the paper. Best experience in my long career (20+ years, 10+ top publications). Good comments from referee and editor after five months. 2 very short reports after waiting 11 months and paying a crazy submission fee. Should have read the comments here about how badly run this journal is. Overall good experience. Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics. Empirical results didn't match their political priors so recommended rejection. Although paper is accepted, i would hardly deal with them in the future. Editor is a insecure joke. Suggested AEJ:AE, RESTAT and top field. Still not a fan of this journal. Received desk rejection from one of the editors quoting results completely unrelated to my paper. Paper was a letter. Horrible experience. 2 referee reports. Saying that the topic is not general enough. Very quick response from Larry Katz. The editor read the paper in great details and added a lot of comments to the referees'. Reject. SHAME on you. Nothing that could not be fixed in 2 days, still reject. Rather uninformative feedback: feeling that it is not suitable for publication and unlikely to be favorably reviewed. Reasonable motivations for desk rejection provided, Fast desk rejection, poor targeting on my part, desk reject but with useful feedback from AE. Two excellent (and supportive) referee reports. 1 helpful report. Club journal that accepts your paper if you have good ties to the editors. Another awful experience -- but par for the course. Great judgment. The editor likes the idea, but things the method is not new, so recommended to a field journal. Editor didnt seem to pay attention to the content. 2/3 ref reports were detailed and useful. -> Toilet. One very good report, one OK. One referee report indicated it would be a better fit in a different journal. The editor talked about 4 ref reports. 100 days for 2 useless reports showing lack of understanding of whats going on in the paper, Nice and quick, but bad experience. One very good and one very weak report. Now? Finance Job Rumors (489,506) General Economics Job Market Discussion (729,795) Micro Job Rumors (15,237) Macro Job Rumors (9,803) European Job Market (101,021) China Job Market (103,531) Industry Rumors (40,351) Just a generic email, no particular reason provided, With editor in 3 days, rej in another 2 days. At least they gave decent feedback. Deemed too narrow for the journal. Second referee based their rejection on a mathematical claim that was completely wrong. Click here for more information. Recommend trying better journal. One was more helpful than the other. Short straight-to-the point referee report with a few nice points, no bullc*ap. The other referee was also good and liked the paper. Extremely efficient process with good comments by referees. I wrote the editor but nothing changed. On its face, the referee provided a good report, but once I dug into the details, it was clear he didn't understand my identification strategy. Really good experience, good comments and moved quickly through the process. A long wait but not very helpful comments. A bit slow for a 2000 words paper. 1 positive and 1 negative report. Production process is quite efficient, but the journal does not post articles online in advance which harms visibility a little. This referee made no specific comments. Strange experience anyway and wont like to repeat it. Third round (acceptance) took 2 weeks. Only one semi-informative report. Editor clearly read a good deal of the paper and his comments were as helpful as the median referee report. Lousy comments from the Editor in chief. Great experience, one of the referees truly improved the paper substantially. Took 3 rounds for editor to realize terrible referee was a crackpot. Editor suggested top field, decided not to send to referrees due to "narrowness of topic." Very good set of comments from Ricardo Reis. No refund. Surprised at how quickly all went. WE got an RR, submitted the revisions in 6 months (a lot of extra work done). one referee suggested revision, one rejection, editor followed the rejection; good reports, suggestions improved the paper, Two revisions but rejected by editor, fast and fair comments, One accept with min comments, one said ok but many points/revisions, one reject, editor said too large a revision without guarantee for accept, 1 report recommended to publish, 1 pointed out minor points. Generally not 5-star experience but worth submitting there if your paper is relevant. I needed to contact the editorial office to know who the editor was, if the paper was sent to referess and etcc, and this after more than a month that the paper was submitted. Good comments, helped improve the paper. ", Editor had serious problems in getting referee reports although on this topic there should have been at least 20 potential referees. 12.5 euro (exclusive of VAT) for each hour it sat with them. Note that some areas need filling in with actual pages. Editor Bruce Hollingsworth suggested an alternative journal. Very bad reports from non economists. Editor provided quick and fair comments why the paper is not suitable for the journal. Recommended reject because he thought the sample of countries wasn't broad enough (despite it being a paper on a specific set of countries on purpose, as explained in the methodology). Long time to edit and format after acceptance. 6 months to receive half-assed & useless referee reports and request for major revisions. One excellent report, one mediocre report. Bad experience. 2 weeks to generic desk reject with no comments whatsoever. Checked my e-mail and editor rejected the paper. Desk rejected after one day due to poor fit. One referee did not answer the revised version the other recommended to accept. It was a rejection but the editor (Abramitzky) read the paper and provided some additional comments that were helpful. Boston University Department of Economics. Given all that has happened with JPE in recent years, don't think I will waste my time and money with them again. The report seemed to be more appropriate for a revise and resubmit. I would recommend to send your draft to this journal. decent referee reports, overall good experience. Second one was about 15 lines. He/she states that a particular model delivers a set of results, although I show that it does not. No feedback at all. The editor suggested to try a more mainstream Public Finance journal (I think may paper could have fit Public Choice but fair enough I will try another Public Finance journal). The report must have been farmed out to some grad student who couldn't write. Referee claims no revisements were made after substantial revisements were made and detailed. Pointed out the problems in the model and also admitted that its difficult to take care of all those problems. Referee seemed have read just the abstract. game theoretic contribution not significant enough for publishing at this journal, three rounds of R&R (two with the referees, one with the editor); very good experience, reviews vastly improved the paper, Very fast review process (note: it was a special issue). Very professional editors. Some helpful comments. 14 months from submission to publication online. Unbelievably slow given their 30-day referee guideline. Positive comments from the editor. Will never submit to this journal again. Overall, paper first sent in November and accepted in next August! I received 3 paragraphs of comments from the AE. took 5 months. Useless referee reports--one was just a single short paragraph. relatively high quality referee reports, huge amount of work needed to format the paper according to the editorial guidelines as they receive little typesetting support from publisher. Who are these people?? Something like that should not leave even an undergrad's desk. Very fast and the submission fee is relatively cheap and even cheaper for grad students. However, it was relatively fast at least. Now Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics. Useful reports and fast turnaround. Job Market. Nice words from Editor. Superficial comment. Based on the large volume of submissions we receive bla bla, Unfathomably long time to first decision, referee comments impleid the paper was not read diligently, despite being just 4-5 pages. 3 months (!) Incredibly unprofessional. Ridicolous report: 3 lines where the referee asked to address "geopolitical" issues. Clear and concise communication with insightful and prfound comments by editor and reviewers. One very good and helpful report. Board Threads Posts Last Post; Economics Job Market Threads. The reviewer's reports came up 2 months after submission. 1 report, minor issues, rejected. The referee is clearly not up to the task. One decent report. Which is BS because paper on the same topic was published a couple of months earlier in EJ. Editor (Reis) worked hard on paper to make it better. 2 months, the article is still under internal review DPR had my manuscript for over a year, and never even got it under review. Fast turn around, 3 detailed reports, 1 clueless polisci. Process was a complete disgrace. Especially to think about how to pre-empt such negative comments in future submissions. AFter 3 months of being "under review", I get this email: I regret to say that we are not able to offer publication to your paper. Editor rejected, but I have a feeling that both refs recommended R&R for different reasons. Thorough review. Nothing more frustrating than paying to submit a paper that was desk rejected after 2 months with no reason given for rejection "I find the overall contribution too small to justify publication in AEJ". Result not general enough for ECMA. Also, did not bother to understand the theoretical contribution. Reviewer comments not helpful and very difficult to understand. Second was uninformative. (Elhanan Helpman)I am afraid that your paper is too narrow for the Quarterly Journal of Economics. The first "editor invited" declined after 8 weeks and two emails to follow up. Reports seemed to be of pretty good quality. Desk rejection within two weeks. Fast and fair. Two referees made great reviews and very detailed comments. Reserve Bank of New Zealand - Te Putea MatuaWellington - New Zealand, Assistant Director, Economics Very unprofessional. AE didn't provide comments which is odd. Editorial processes were very fast. If this journal wants to publish high quality papers, it needs to pick someone better than Joerg Baten who actually reads the papers before he accepts/rejects, etc. Desk rejected in two weeks. One where the only material comment has a grammatical error that makes understanding it difficult? Very efficient indeed!!!!!!! Welcome to the Mathematics Jobs Wiki 2021-2022 research positions page. The paper was "with the editor". Really bad experience (Midrigan was the editor). Fair enough reasons why, but would have appreciated less time. your paper, after some updating to reflect the recent complementary literature, would be more appropriate for a more specialized journal. Very fast process but no comment from the Associate Editor. Two very thin referee reports. You received a high fee, you explain at least one sentence about your decision making.
Kendall Toole Engaged,
Msc Meraviglia March 2022,
Rodney Perry Hospitalized,
Frigidaire Gallery Dishwasher Door Latch,
Captain D's Stuffed Crab Shell Ingredients,
Articles E
econ job market rumors wiki