The editor was not helpful at all. Zero constructive comments! Paper went multiple rounds over 2 years. The Referee Report was very helpful and quite positive. Return in 5 weeks with a two-paragraph short response. Desk rejected within 10 days. Editor clearly read the paper. My applied labour paper was desk rejected by an editor that works on theoretical macro. Production process is quite efficient, but the journal does not post articles online in advance which harms visibility a little. Overall experience is horrible. Editor rejected the paper, but it was not unexpected. Two excellent (and supportive) referee reports. One useless referee report claiming that we did not make robustness checks in a journal of 2000 letters! (Shouldn't these cases be desk-rejected instead of being rejected after 6 months?). The referee report was mildly constructive, being generally positive. 2 constructive reports that improve the paper after 2 months. No value for such a high submission fee. Good overall experience. A specialized journal is more suitable for this contribution. After 8 months of waiting, got the shortest referee paper ever. One good report, one completely useless with only superficial, general remarks. Editorial work was very fair - gave an R&R despite split reports. Reviewers comments were quite helpful. Why don't black people open carry and call it 2nd amendment rights? Bad experience with both the referee reports and the editor, Single RR, Editor said couldn't find a second reviewer. Topic too narrow: not of long run and externally valid interest to general economics; Desk rejected in a bit more than two weeks. Both referees clearly read the paper and discussed potential concerns of the analysis. Available November 2022 for positions in Summer/Fall 2023. The journal is higher than B. Whole process super quick. Three excellent reports, the referees had really put an effort. The most underutilized channel is Paid Search. At least response in 1.5 month. Very helpful referee report. Referee report was ready within a month after submission. I contacted the journal about that but no response. Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics. Detailed reports, 2 negative, 1 positive; nice letter from co-editor. Desk rejected after 7 weeks. Editor chose to follow the suggestion of the AE. this is just too slow for not even receiving useful feedback. JFM is bad! Great experience overall, Editor decided not to wait for the late referee not to slow down the process. 6 months to desk reject with little reason. Good reports. No discussion on the ID strategy, nor the novelty of the data. Good experience, even though a reject. Submission fee refund. 2.5 months review. Desk reject after 1 week. Reasonable decision. Useless referee reports--one was just a single short paragraph. It's quick, but the reports are really bad and unhelpful. The comments were not helpful, but at least I know that the editor has a strong bias towards the method. 1 great, 1 so so, 1 absolutely trash (the referee only argued on the reliability of the benchmark case, which is a well established result in the literature!!!). Referee reports were modestly helpful, though there was very little overlap between what the referees commented on. Fast desk reject. Total 6 months. It took a long time to hear back from the first round. True, no time wasted, just the $125 submission fee. 2 rounds of r&r. Very good experience! Almost happy. First report was helpful, second one was literally 2 lines. Title: Researcher Location: COLOMBIA JEL Classifications:. Galor and the referees felt the contribution wasn't substantial enough. It took a lot of work but response to my R&R was positive. Poor experience, will not submit again. Was satisfied with the experience, solid referee reports. Bad experience on the whole. EconJobRumors.com, otherwise known as Economic Job Market Rumors or EJMR, is a website for academic economists. Very helpful comments. Avoid this shitty journal. Second referee based their rejection on a mathematical claim that was completely wrong. Overall, very happy with the process. Good comments, helped improve the paper. Although the other referee was positive, editor rejected it. solution? Bad experience. 2022 Job Market Candidates . Some useful comments, most misreads and poor understanding of model. SIX MONTHS for a desk reject. The second round of review only took 3 weeks. Avoid him. After 10 months waiting, I had a revise and resubmit decision. Two reports of middling quality. Constructive and very specific. Was rejected today by editor as only 1/2 referee reports submitted. Actually a nice experience. 48 hour DR, no particular comments from Shleifer except interesting paper, suggest AEJ:applied. Referee report was reasonable and improved the manuscript. What is left to say? We were asked to run additional experimental treatments to support our claims. Reports were of moderate quality. 4 months for a desk rejection based on what it appears to be a very superficial reading of the abstract. only one report (quite helpful). Do yourself a favor: if you have a journal that fits the topic of this journal, just submit it to JPopEcon, LE or the new Journal of Economics of Ageing. Desk reject in two days for not being general enough, $132 fee not refunded. Both reports very helpful, AE comments showed that he did not understand the paper. Desk reject within two weeks. This is designed to reduce the overall turnaround time for the journal, especially given the high volume of submissions." Katz very thoughtful and helpful editor letter. Extremely poor experience for a journal charging submission fees. Great experience; precise and informed referee report; 1st round for major improvements, 2nd round pretty much converged to acceptance. 1 extremely helpful report and 2 so so ones. 9 months to one ref report which was not helpful. Under 2 weeks for a desk reject. best submission experience. 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. Bad report, condescending. Desk Reject in 2 weeks for not general interest enough. Decent referee reports, good turnaround time. One report was low quality the other was so-so. Pure pure waste of time and disgrace to the profession having journals around. The referee has read the paper. Submitted a really cool COVID-19 theory and emperical paper. Overall good experience. The journal took 13 months to get 1 referee report from a non-expert only to reject our paper. Got the rejection after 185 days, referees like to wait until the last couple of days to read papers! However comments from the negative one are the most detailled and helpful. The editor read the paper and gave some comments and suggestions. Very professional way of handling the process, Very helpful report which has permitted to increase the quality of the paper. These rankings consider only the youngest economists registered with RePEc. Rejection reason shows Meghir did not read the paper, bad editor dull comments. Burak Uras (Tilburg AP), Caitlin Hegarty (Michigan), Diana Sverdlin Lisker (MIT), Suzanna Khalifa (Aix-Marseille), Garima Sharma (MIT), Ruozi Song (USC), Heitor Sandes Pellegrina (NYU Abu Dhabi), Juanma Castro-Vincenzi (Princeton), Katherine Stapleton (WB/Oxford), Dario Tortarolo (Berkeley), Jonah Rexer (Wharton), Anna Vitali (UCL), Livia Alfonsi (Berkeley), Binta Zahra Diop (Oxford), Shafaat Yar Khan (WB/Rochester), Althoff (Princeton), Seck (Harvard), Vaidya (Northwestern), Chan (Stanford), Bodere (NYU), Pernoud (Stanford), Kang (Stanford GSB), Minni (LSE), Otero (Berkeley), Bodere (NYU), Vergara (Berkeley), Anstreicher (Wisconsin), Carry (CREST), Flynn (MIT), Kleinman (Princeton), Nguyen (MIT), Ospital (UCLA), Lanzani (MIT), Moscona (MIT/Harvard), Kennedy (Berkeley), Souchier (Stanford). Quick response: three months to receive three detailed referee reports and email from editor. Standard experience with the JHR. Fair editor. Very good experience; desk reject with highly valuable and fair comments by the co-editor within 10 days. Poorly managed journal. Journal response was quick. Although my manuscript wa based on stochastic processes, editor rejected it since they were not expert in applied econometrics. Had to withdraw the paper after more than a year waiting since submission. The manuscript improved substantially as well, thanks to the reports. Editor rejected the paper based on the decision of board of editor. Comments from Larry very helpful. Desk rejection came in 10 days. Rather slow desk reject. 2 detailed comments from referees. Was initially more of a reject and resubmit, but the referee reports were extremely helpful and the AE gave essentially a third report. Not for the faint-hearted. Fair reject with detailed reports. 3 months to R&R, accepted after 1 round of revision. Very pleased. 2 mildly useful reports. Grossbard handled the paper and accepted conditional on rewrite around her useless and poorly cited old work. Some good comments from referees, overall a good experience. Editor admitted haven't read the paper. They will not respond to editorial office inquiries or direct emails to the editors. But first response took a whole year. Horrible process. One referee had clearly read the paper. 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). Manuscript was withdrawn - editor had assigned referees within 3 months of submission but then these were apparently not forthcoming. Held my paper for a full year and rejected it on a split decision with one ref suggesting an RR and the other a reject. Process a bit slow. Editor wrote report himself. Referee seemed have read just the abstract. Stay away from JAE. Rejected because topic did not fit the journal. For these reasons, the paper does not meet the standards for consideration in a top-5 journal. After another three months, the paper was reject on the basis of a presumed 2nd referee report, only with a few lines, that says the paper is "well structured, well written, and deploys sound econometric methodology", but "does not add value to the existing literature". Very quick response. Outright accept after first resubmission still came as a surprise given JIE typically has 2-3 rounds. Accepted 1 1/2 weeks after revision was submitted. Complained. Nothing substantial to improve the paper. Said the paper was to mathematical/econometrical for the journal. Desk reject after 2 days (contribution too small). quick process but the editor provided no information and was impolite. No further comment from the editor. Three reports, all of high quality, within 2 months. The third referee recommended acceptance, but the editor rejected. Probably just a grad student who could only understand calculations. Got (weak) R&R in first round, rejected in second round (although I still think we addressed most comments). Very useful comments. They just pocketed the submission fee. The rejection was fair but the referee report uninformative and boilerplate. 3 pages of helpful comments by the editor, suggested very good field journals instead, Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series A (Statistics in Society). The secondary market "Scramble". Three reports, two positive & on point; one negative & showing lack of understanding of structural modelling and estimation. When he rejected the paper for the Economic Systems, he then asked me to submit the same paper to his journal "Emerging Markets Finance and Trade." 10 lines not even sure they read the paper. Response time was decent. Two reports negative and one positive, editor chooses to reject. 3 rounds then rejected by editor, paper was improved by addressing reviewers' comments, eventually accepted at RFS, Cam Harvey gave useless report; obvious outgoing editor is obvious. Yes, he can ask for odd things. Very good clarification and additional comments from Associate Editor. 3 reports, very quick. I ended up presenting the paper at two conferences between the submission and the decision. Desk rejected in two weeks. They will delay and reject any papers on topics that someone at Duke also works on. Useful reports, good summary by editor. the referee reports are of good quality, but I think 11 month for a first response is too long, Very quick response. Appreciate the quick turnaround. 1 short and useless report, 1 incompetent (was the reason the paper was rejected) - the referee could not understand that his major criticism was trivial and was dedicated one line in introduction, 1 favorable report. 3 Reports. The referee suggested a wrong point as the problem but didn't suggest rejection. Very efficient process. Editor claimed to have two reports but gave me only one. In any case, after having contacted the editorial office the staff there were really nice and helpful and contacted the editor on my behalf. Desk rejected in 8 days. Suggested some other journals. Very efficient and fast. Editor sent it to peer review in one day. Reports were not very helpful. Overall very good experience. Strange desk reject by editor, claiming methods weren't relevant to policy. We'll see. Quick response. Editor was a little bit lazy as it took him two months after receiving the ref report to answer. Ridiculous. One is OK, other one is exteremly negative. Very quick route to getting useful reports. Insightful comments by both referees and editor. Rejection came on Easter morning. 2 weeks (Comment by the editor constructive and helpful). Boo! Referee was perceptive and pointed out serious flaws in the first draft. All the referees understood what I did in great detail. Odd journal but overall pleased with the result if not every part of the process. Fast response time. One was favorable, the other was on the fence. fair comment. Desk reject in one week, some good comments from editor. Lastly withdrew for good after another six months. quick and clear communication with editor. Still, I lost 7 months overall. useless reports referees didn't seem to read the paper and appeared not to be experts .. Desk-rejected in 7 days: "the paper lacks sufficient political economy content to be appropriate". Massive work. At least they are quick! Great experience. Quick process, very solid reports and editor comments. Very good set of comments from Ricardo Reis. Nice experience!!! One very good report, one OK. One referee report indicated it would be a better fit in a different journal. Referee reports were very good, constructive and tough. Rejected on pretty poor grounds by an associate editor. American Economic Journal: Macroeconomics. One positive report, one negative. Paper was accepted in 1 month after the submission. Very good experience overall. Terribly disappointing experience. Some helpful comments. 6 months for useless reports. Super fast process than I had expected. One referee was thoughtful and recommended acceptance; Second referee asked for more results; AE agreed with the 1st referee. When pressed, editor said we weren't doing the same things as everyone else. 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. 5 days. Could have been more lucky with referees, but at least it was very efficient. Not to say, the shortcoming is an accepted norm till one finds a better way. Very fast process, that is why I submitted to the journal. Candidate Job Market Roster. Revise and Resubmit. The only referee who respond wrote some nonsense without reading the paper. completely ?misread? Fair rejection. the journal is recovering. Editor was polite. The editor make effort to found the right people to read the paper. One week desk rejection with form letter. I declined the offer to resubmit. AE didn't provide comments which is odd. Excellent communication with editor. fair decision, Super quick desk rejection because paper uses archive data but isn't really econ hist, 6 months plus to first decision - then substantial time between R&R rounds, with pednatic comments which mostly wanted to remove the economics from the paper to the appendix. Disappointing experience. Took 3 rounds for editor to realize terrible referee was a crackpot. No clue about topic etc would be kind thing to say. The first referee points out at the weaknesses of the paper and proposes reasonable solutions. Passed the desk (Turner) in ten days. long waiting time. A form-letter rejection from Katz. Helpful comments from the editor. Mediocre assessment from referee with some helpful suggestions. Editor also read the paper and agreed with referees. Decision was made in 45 days. In general, it is difficult to follow the derivations due to a lack of intuitive explanations. One fairly high-quality report, one not-so good. Paper was poorly read by the referees. One report was very constructive and helped improve the qualitiy of the paper. Editing is a service and it is not mandatory. While the goal is to provide you a definitive answer within one month of submission. Good communication and seemed very efficient. The negative one is essentially saying "it's not game theory so I don't care." One referee suggested R and R. Other referee rejected (AE and DE supported this). I had to send two emaisl to follow up the process at the beginning. Editor was also very helpful. Roughly 2-3 pages of comments from each reviewer. Desk reject in one day. Instead, the reviewer says you did not cite a literature that is totally beside the point, the main concept of your paper is not mentioned not even once in that literature. First referee constructive and positive. Demanded a lot of work during r&r but reasons for rejection were already known in the first version. Currently under R&R at a journal with the same ranking. We have no new methodology because, when tried, the data suggest traditional fits better: not interesting enough for RSUE. One ref in favor, one against. Placements of Recent Economics Graduates. Comments were useful and recommended a tier of journal to try next. No BS, great experience! Quick with two very good reports and a detailed decision letter from the editor. desk reject in 2.5 hrs? Useless submission, with a reg-monkey editor desk rejecting the paper. Clearly the referee was someone not in the field of the paper (Asset Pricing). Expected a lot better from this journal. Just a one-paragraph report saying that the results are not "novel". Waste my time. Rejected within 4 days with a decent explanation. Recommended field journal, and it was in fact eventually published in the top field journal. Resubmitted within the same day. Very efficient process. A journal to avoid. 2 reports minimal work, 1 report some work. 3 detailed reports, and a summary from Hendren explaining the rejection. One referee report---which is actually better than any report ever received with this paper (including those from RFS, JFQA, and MS). Not a r, Contribution: Single country Sample and OLS production, International Review of Law and Economics, very helpful comments which improved the quality of the paper; time between resubmit and acceptance: 6 days! 1 fair and 1 insulting referee report after waiting more than 10 months! Associate editors are very professional. Other than that, the process was good. Not general interest enough. Bruno Biais was AE. One useless report, and one very useful report. 4.5 months to get the 1st-round comments, 2.5 months for 2nd round. Editor didn't pay any attention to the reports. Didn't even quite read the rewritten paper. Actually Journal of Economic Policy Reform. Overall a very nice experience. I don't disagree with decision, but too long for a relatively straight-forward empirical paper. Woman completes quintessentially English mission to eat 244 scones across U.K. Excellent review with great advice on how to improve the paper. Poorly managed. Horner is a disaster! [2] [3] Like its sister sites Political Science Rumors and Sociology Job Market Rumors, EconJobRumors . One good report, one very bad full of misunderstandings. Longish time to first response but good reports and a ref who just loved digging into my equations. Later saw a similar paper to be published with less data work. Only one report. Bad to useless reports after a longish delay. Got accepted with minor revisions after two wonderful set of comments from the referees. Referees did not understand the contribution of the paper. Overall, not bad experience. Another awful experience -- but par for the course. Barro says not sufficiently general interest, and advises to try a field journal instead. Special fast-track call. Clear and concise communication with insightful and prfound comments by editor and reviewers. Good report from reviewers. awful reportreferee asked "why is this a problem?". Process was too long given that only minor changes were required on R&R. Good reports - detailed and constructive. Posted: (4 days ago) WebNov 2011 - Present10 years 4 months. Rejected with 2 reviews on the grounds of insufficient contribution to literature. Very efficient. The editor emailed me after 6 days and said he read and liked the paper. low quality and very short referee report Mixed referee report; Major comments are contradictory and answerable in the text. Referees do not seem to have read the paper well, poorly written reports. Took 7 months to give 1 referee report with just 5 lines. They took the paper seriously. Sadly, no mention of why paper was rejected (only minor issues raised). Disappointed it wasn't sent out for review, but can't fault them for speed! Two rounds of R&R! I haven't received the first response yet. Job Market. No substantive comments from any of the three referees. One report was not very helpful. Recommended. Rejection based on fit. Referees felt nothing wrong with the paper but (perhaps) did not think the paper fit this journal. Quick and professional handling by the editor. Good experience. Will not submit here in the future. Excellent reports. Rejected based on an initial screening by some expert. Please post listings by subject area. Long wait to hear back, the referees got changed, and then the editor rejected it based on issues that were known from the beginning. Very efficiently run journal. Got the reports after 6 weeks in both rounds. All in all it was a fair rejection and a good experience overall. Sum up: Fast but not cool, Editor. One good and two useless reports. He gave few recommendations. Third round (acceptance) took 2 weeks.
What Time Does Circle K Stop Selling Beer On Sunday, Articles E