He might have read the abstract--clearly doesn't know the literature enough to see the contribution. It seems that the referee did not read the paper just pinpointed assumptions he did not like to reject. Receive reports from Reviewer 2 and Reviewer 3. Very efficient process. 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. Main reason for this is that they assigned a different associate editor on the second round which I find highly unusual. Took 6 months to receive 3 reports. One referee report only. Search by field of study. one nasty and rudely written report with inaccuracies as well, one cited lack of fit. Ok, experience if it wouldnt be for the 11 months. Referees rejected the paper or asked for major revisions. Mostly generic comments. Referee reports were very good, constructive and tough. The editor and referee claimed the results were nice but hardly adoptable to other more general problems. they suggested a more spezialized on topic journal. by Tatonnement Oct 1, 2008 18:58:14 GMT -5: Legend. Fast turn around. Efficient and fair. Comments by R1 were helpful, but 100+ days for 1 report is too long. It is frustrating to get rejected after convincing the referees. Referee reject without any comments after 14 months of chasing the journal. Quick to online first. 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). Second referee based their rejection on a mathematical claim that was completely wrong. Fast desk reject. 19. Bad experience, never submit to this journal again. Finance Job Rumors (489,493) General Economics Job Market Discussion (729,790) Micro Job Rumors (15,237) Macro Job Rumors (9,803) European Job Market (101,019) China Job Market (103,530) Industry Rumors (40,349) Most of the 5 moths was because we were makingf teh changes. 2022 Job Market Candidates . Turn down without a single line of comment in both rounds. Great turnaround I guess? One detailed report. Quick, very good feedback. Thank you for visiting the Department of Economics job market website. The referee reports were serious and offered some good suggestions, although one of the referees appeared not to understand the theoretical model used in the paper. We thought we'd receive useful reports even if we got rejected, but this turned out to be a total waste of time. Alessandro Gavazza was the editor and excellent. An incompetent referee and an editor that could not care less of how slow the process was: a lethal combo, Quick decision, with some useful comments in the reports. The latter may be fine but it is clear that the referee did not read the paper very carefully. Very mixed report quality. 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). Soon it became like a bar that doesn't kick out any assholes and now its a collection of assholes who happen to do economics. Mod's pls delete it. Would try again in the future. It is a disgrace to the profession reflects poorly on the journal. The editor had good words about the paper but one ref didn't like it, so he rejected it. End of story. Desk rejected in two weeks. It is definitely not worth the long wait! I don't know what to add. However, I did pay and forward teh receipt as evidence. Revise and Resubmit. Extremely unprofessional. Editor then read the paper and rejected it. The AE also provided his own review. Referee #1 wrote 1 sentence saying to submit it to AER. Rejection based on technical point, which could be fixed withing 2 weeks. Desk reject in a few hours with very impersonal email. Didn't really get a clear sense from the negative reports why they rejected. The referees and the editor took ridic, Editor: Heckman; high quality reports, two of the reports were helpful and constructive. Good reports - detailed and constructive. Quick acceptance after revision. Department of Economics, 2022-2023 Ph.D. Lucky to get past desk reject. Very fast, but no comments, waste of $250, Journal of International Trade and Economic Development. Very fast. The editor barely read the paper and decided to reject! Paper drastically improved through process. Editor didn't read the paper, based her decision on reports. Very different than my past experience. Had favorable ref reports from QJE and ReStud. Thoughtful comments from the referees and the editor. Finance Job Rumors (489,474) General Economics Job Market Discussion (729,762) Micro Job Rumors (15,233) Macro Job Rumors (9,803) European Job Market (101,001) China Job Market (103,523) Industry Rumors (40,348) Overall, great experience despite the negative outcome, The WORST experience of my rather long life. Editor read the paper, added some comments of her own. is ?quite ?perplexing, ?since ?the ?Nash ?axioms ?apply ?to? I sent in my paper and after 2 emails requesting information about the status of my manuscript, I was asked to be patient. apologize.? Fast and very competent review. avoid. Submission fee refund. In-depth argumentation why there is no sufficient progress compared to common wisdom. as stated ("within 24 hours") we got an editorial reject claiming the lack of interest for a broad audience. Unbelievably fast and helpful. Worse experience ever. Georgetown University - McDonough School of Business, Associate Professor or Assistant Professor, International Political Economy, Georgetown University McDonough School of Business, Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies Geneva, International Finance/Macro - Macroeconomics; Monetary, Chaudary (Chicago Booth); Chan (Stanford); Minni (LSE); Vats (Chicago Booth), Lukas Althoff (Princeton), Giacomo Lanzani (MIT), Jacob Moscona (MIT), Agathe Pernoud (Stanford), Rahul Singh (MIT), Daniela Vidart (UCSD/UConn), Heinz College, Carnegie Mellon University, Assistant Professor of Economics and Public Policy, Christensen (UIUC AP) Reimers (Northeastern AP) Kwon (Cornell) Newberry (UGA AP) Lee (Princeton) Serna (Wisconsin) He (Yale) Alba (Toronto) Yang (Duke) Weber (Yale) Craig (Yale) Rogers (UCSD), International Economics/Industrial Organization, Yajie Wang (University of Rochester), Hyunji Song (Texas A&M University), Yumeng Gu (University of California-Davis), Yes (1st round complete. Working on my R&R now. Rejected with two reports with fair remarks. It took 4 months to get the reviews, but the reviews were excellent. Two reports with mixed view. Contrary to my earlier belief, this journal does not give you a quick outcome. Very efficient process. Rejected within 24hrs by Katz. Submitted July 2012, short empirical paper, still waiting for first response. Editor rejected based on own concerns. However, he referred to incorrect and minor points made by the referees. At least turnaround time was fast: 14 days. Ref reports were okay. Under review, it gets assigned to Co-editor Brennan. Letters from the Editor was nice. General Economics Job Market Discussion (729,806) Micro Job Rumors (15,245) Macro Job Rumors (9,803) European Job Market (101,027) China Job Market (103,534) 1 useless report, 1 very helpful and 1 okay. The editor likes the idea, but things the method is not new, so recommended to a field journal. Just a generic email, no particular reason provided, With editor in 3 days, rej in another 2 days. Got a slow desk rejection from LB telling me/us to cite someone I cited in the intro. One of the critics was not applicable, but the major critic was quite helpful. They clearly help the author to improve their paper instead of rejecting it without trying to extract the best. 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. PhD Program Administrator: Mirtha Cabello, cabello@bu.edu, (617) 353-4454. I wouldn't try this again. My paper has been under the status "with editor" after submission for almost one half year, and I have decided to withdraw the paper. Good comments, made the paper better. Rejected in 10 days with no comments. Editor then agreed. reports. One referee openly mentioned s/he doesnt like the method used in the paper. However, I regret to say that it is a bit tangential to the main focus of our journal, and we are not able to offer publication". R&R in two months. Referee rejected but with very exhaustive and interesting comments, only one report, but it was fair and can help me to improve the paper, Reports are thoughtful and useful for revisions, it took them 11 months to reject with one referee report of about half a page. Desk rejected within 1 week. Outcome was fair and reports well done, but waiting time was unacceptable and the editor's lettere extremely poor. Expedient. Incredible experience: referee said he/she didn't like the paper. Two excellent referee reports. 1 lukewarm, lazy report with many mistakes. Will submit again. The editor, one AE and some referees (in the first stage there was only one, completely irrelevant) have insulted my intelligence. One report was an absolute travesty and surely had to be disregarded. Reflects really poorly on the journal to keep this guy. Referees reasons to reject the paper are not convincing enough. Professional and useful oversall. overall satisfied with the dispute process in terms of speed and fairness. Desk reject after few days with some useful suggestions. two referee reports. Very quick response. Second referee made some useful suggestions. paper took over a month to get desk rejected because of problems with elsevier system. 12 months and waiting. It's time for the journal to kick out some unprofessional referees. The status are always the same "under review". get first response in 28 days. Very good referee reports. Professional co-editor and referee. Very low quality report. Good experience. Reason: topic/results too narrow with respect to broad audience. Long wait to hear back, the referees got changed, and then the editor rejected it based on issues that were known from the beginning. The other is constructive but not as good. Job Market. The closures follow the consequences of the 2020 BLM-Antifa riots that . Will submit there in the future. No specific comment from the editor. No refund. Submitted a really cool COVID-19 theory and emperical paper. This particular group controlling urban economics now will not let any differing view go through AER and JUE. R&R after 3-4 months. Faster than I expected given horror stories i have heard here and elsewhere, and with good comments from refs and editor. 13 months to a referee reject, supposedly two reports summarized in one paragraph sent in a letter from the editor. We'll see. Desk reject for paper being too narrow for the audience of the journal. Good experience overall, only took 2 weeks, two short reports, one very useful. 1 Ref suggested R&R, Galasso decided to reject, Two referees, one useful and helpful, the other clearly not an expert in the field. Big lie. My paper was in "submitted" status for almost 5 months when made a query. A forum for economists to discuss economics, economics jobs, conferences, journals and more. Unfair decision. Time to accept less than 1 year. At least response in 1.5 month. Desk rejection in one week. Good strong editors. Finally very well handled by the editor. Quick desk reject with a few comments from the editor. Good report. 1 report from a senior researcher, who thinks that our paper is a fine exercise but suits field journal better. Referee comments show that it could be an RR but the editor rejected. Took way too long prob will avoid in future. Fair and useful comment by the editor. Later saw a similar paper to be published with less data work. No comments at all from editor other than generic stuff. It took the editor 3 months to write two paragraphs and reject. one so-so report and one excellent report, Both negative, one fair, other illustrated misunderstanding of econometrics. Job Market. Really involved editor and a referee who suggested changes that, while complex, were easy to deal with. One very positive and helpful report, one negative report. The paragraph/comment not constructive. Excellent and clear communication with editors. Bad experience: subjective report + pretentious editor + journal for friends (econometrics family) = save your money, submit elsewhere. They will delay and reject any papers on topics that someone at Duke also works on. Recommended rejection. One of the papers has over 3000 citations. Reports were sound and improved the paper substantially. The associate editor was very helpful in terms of what needs to be done. Spent a week rewriting the paper according to requests of the editor ("put figures in the end of the paper" and such), then got a desk reject. Despite the rejection, a very fair process with constructive comments and a fast response. Milner's an emeritus, what else does he have to do? Two years ago, I had a different paper rejected by EER, with two good referee reports and an AE negative about it. One referee clearly did not read the paper, while the other one did not understand the meaning of control variables. A very detailed and fair review of our research, providing a balanced judgement of our achievements. Overall very good quality of reports and very helpful guidance from the editor. Desk rejected by editor, who said that editor in chief rejects ~40% and he rejects about the same. Waste of time. had another paper desk rejected by the same editor two years ago, text motivating the rejection was exactly the same (copy + paste) plus an additional 2 sentences explaining why the editor dislikes the approach chosen in the paper, Major revisions at the first round and then accepted. Good experience. These advices do make the paper better. Less than two weeks from submission to editorial decision. Some useful comments from his friend. In hindsight, submitted the paper too prematurely. Editor recommended to submit to other journals. The saving grace is that it was fast. Two solid referee reports. So unprofessional and shameful. never submit to this journal again. Editor misread the title and barely read the abstract. 1 months for desk reject. Desk reject after 2 days (contribution too small). All editors have lined up to publish their own papers (just see the forthcoming papers, 3 (three!!) Editor provided useful feedback and a subsequent version of the manuscript was sent out for peer review. Desk rejected in 3 days. Great experience. Overall, great experecience! Horner is a disaster! Two weeks with very good (2 pages) report from AE. Mentioned but did not provide reports, just asked for a more policy oriented conclusion, unresponsive to emails. a bit slowtwo general positive+one negative reports, and the editor rejected itfeel sad, but not too bad experience Average (low) quality reports. Fairly standard rejection letter, not general enough. Drill down into the main traffic drivers in each channel below. Suggested a top field journal! He does not read the paper, or he has no expertise. AER:Insights. Filter by advisor. The reviewer was excellent, made the paper much better with his/her comments. Extremely long wait at this journal for comments. I appreciate the quick desk reject. Some interesting comments, but not much. Very good and useful referee reports. Took seven weeks to get these reviews, pretty efficient journal. Referees do not seem to have read the paper well, poorly written reports. Referee comments were pretty minor. Finance Job Rumors (489,418) General Economics Job Market Discussion (729,722) Micro Job Rumors (15,231) Macro Job Rumors (9,801) European Job Market (101,001) China Job Market (103,526) Industry Rumors (40,345) Referee reports were very brief and contained little in the way of substantive comments. Desk rejected within 3 days with idiotic comments, as usual. Suggested top field journal. Editor actually read the paper. Lastly withdrew for good after another six months. reviewer reports were okay, but the process took so long. Costas Meghir responses all submissions. The editor claimed that himself and another associate editor read the paper. The other was much more careful. Editor provided suggestions for other journals to consider. Was not notified by the decision through email, found the decision in manuscript central during a random check. Saying that the topic is not general enough. Go report in 2 days. 3 reports. It took 3 weeks to get a desk reject letter. Rejected within one day. The revised submission was accepted within a month. The decision to reject without referees is almost always based on the tastes of the Board of Editors regarding appropriate subject material for the Journal or our views on the novelty and overall importance of a papers contribution. 3 reports: 2 of them really good, one mediocre. The letter from the editor suggests that he/she did not have a firm grasp of the paper. One positive report, one mixed and one negative. Very disappointed at the editor who made a decision based on such a low quality report. First two reports were "not general interest enough" and didn't have much to say substantively as a result (1-2 pages). The editor rejects the paper and I think it is fair, but I do see that the paper can be improved based on these reports. Referred to field, seems editor at least scanned and maybe even read the whole thing. Desk rejected in 2 days. Re-submission took a week to be finally be accepted. Got two negative referee reports, where one in very useful, and the other is moderately so. Journal of the European Economic Association. Paper was poorly read by the referees. Helpful comments from referees and relatively fast. Explains longish time to first review. Efficient and professional. Results not important enough to a broad audience. The referee reports were fairly good. One referee with very helpful reports. editor was nice enough to drop a page or so of precise and useful comments. Good first round reports, took a while to respond to all the comments. 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), Majewska (TSE), Seibel (Zurich), Deng (UMD), Lesellier (TSE), Vanhapelto (TSE), Suzuki (PSU), Leroutier (SSE), Lorentzen (BI Oslo), Guigue (CREST), Kreutzkamp (Bonn), Bou Sleiman (CREST), Silliman (Harvard), Moreno-Maldonado (CUNEF), Khalifa (AMSE), Kondziella (IIES), Merilinen (ITAM); see https://www.helsinkigse.fi/events/category:job-talk, Assistant/Associate/Full Professor - Environmental Economics, Song (USC), Kwon (Cornell), Sileo (Georgetown), Weber (Yale), Ruozi Song (USC), Xincheng Qiu (University of Pennsylvania), Hyuk-soo Kwon (Cornell University), Sean McCrary (University of Pennsylvania), Gretchen Sileo (Georgetown), Stephanie Weber (Yale University), Sadhika Bagga (UT Austin), Ricardo Marto (University of Pennsylvania), Martin Souchier (Stanford University). Good communication with the editor, very helpful referee report. Secodn editor waited almost 6 weeks after receiving the referee reports. "Growing by the Masses: Revisiting the Link between Firm Size and Market . Tough but receptive referees. About 10 weeks from submission to referee reject. Contribution too small. I had. Overall positive experience. The referee seemed to be familiar with the broad topic of the special issue, but not with the specific subject the paper dealt with (e.g. The contribution of the paper as it stands to be insu cient for publication in The Econometrics Journal. That is, the handling of the submission took almost 4 months, I think this is unacceptable: what is the point to have quick referee reports if the editorial team takes such a long time? Serrano accepted the paper a week after resubmission without going back to the reviewers. On the whole very good experience. Posted: (4 days ago) WebNov 2011 - Present10 years 4 months. I have no problem receiving a desk-reject, but the stated reasons show no understanding of our research. No reports provided, but editor made brief helpful comments. 9 months for 1 2-page referee report. Placement Officer: Professor Stefania Garetto, garettos@bu.edu, (617) 358-5887. 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. Good experience. Fast. Stay away from JAE. Very quick. 8 months after submitting the revised version it got accepted. High quality reports and useful comments from the editor. Clearly the referee was someone not in the field of the paper (Asset Pricing). Paper eventually got accepted at higher ranked journal (!). Accepted after 3 R&R. One report was very constructive and helped improve the qualitiy of the paper. Editor Bruce Hollingsworth suggested an alternative journal. Generous comments from editor and referees, lenghty referee reports; rejection because of one referee even though I discuss his point. Helpful and fair referee reports. Editor sent a peper to a 3rd ref, which took forever to write another negative report. Also, reviewers are non-economists, providing some real WTF comments. The editor had read the paper and provided guidance. One month later received rejection with a low quality review. Rejected in 10 days. They just continue their practice of not providing any comments on desk rejections despite a US200 submission fee and really ambiguous aim and scope. Very slow and the reason for rejection was not good enough. Arbitrary decision without sending it to refs by incompetent editor. Said the contribution was too small, which I accept. A good referee report and very efficient editor. Used reports from AER. (It doesn't seem like a club journal. Editor (Reis) worked hard on paper to make it better. Just stay away! Desk reject after 3 days - topic and analysis far too narrow for the kind of general interest audience that JEEA seeks to appeal to. Bad to useless reports after a longish delay. Would submit here again now that I know what to expect. Fast response from the Editor. Do not offer any innovative technique. A grad student could do better! This was the worst referee report ever. There are some great papers in the journal; I would think it would get a higher impact factor. the comment above was for another journals. 2 weeks to desk reject. Worst referee report ever with unsubstantiated claims. I've been rejected and accepted by this journal a few times already. 100 USD for such VALUABLE suggestion. Would submit again. With editor for 1.5 month. Fair rejection. Very efficiently run journal. Apparent that editor read the paper. Referee misread the paper, and hammered us on points that we were not making. Poor referee. Fast publication with reasonable reviewer reports. One of the referee reports was sloppy, showing inaccurate reading. Great experience, one of the referees truly improved the paper substantially. Some of the most useful and thorough referee reports I've gotten. Got a rejection within a couple of days. Amazing efficiency. Serrano seems to be a good/efficient editor. Form letter. 2 rejects, 1 R&R. Was actually scared based off of runors I heard on this site. Desk rejected within 2 days. Never deal with stupid journal anymore. Katz rejected in less than 24 hours with some comments. 2 students with mostly useless comments. 1 report suggesting to cite the Editor's work and speaking about things outside of the scope of the paper. Avoid this journal, you'll not regret. Second round--took less than a month to get 2 detailed second reports from referees--impressive! Lasted 4 days! Quick response. Paper sat at editor's desk for 5 months with no review. The editor-in-chief writes, "Although the question you address and your results are interesting, in my view the paper is a poor fit for GEB's readership..". Helpful comments received from reviewers. Both referees were concerned about identification, but did not suggest how to fix. Did not receive a rejection letter from the co-editor. there is no 2016 in the dropdown list. View Board. The referees responded very quickly and with excellent, high quality reports. Interesting but not a good fit. I contacted the journal about that but no response. The AEA provides a guide to the job market process created by John Cawley. relatively fast process and referee helped to improve the papers. The outcome (referee rejection) was acceptable but 5 month waiting is a large waste of time! No BS, great experience! One good referee report, one referee who had no idea. Waste of time and money. Four months for a desk reject! Editor didn't read the paper. Two decent referee reports. Editor obviously read over the paper and gave a couple of helpful comments. Horrible experience. Nice editor message. report and a couple of pretty good ones. Worst experience of my life. Seems this was not consistent with what is written in website. Desk reject due to lack of scope of the manuscript, Rejected for a lack of contribution. Currently in R&R. Editor rejected after R&R without providing any referee report (note: journal name has now changed to International Journal of Health Economics and Management, International Journal of Industrial Organization. Nice experience despite a rejection. After waiting for 6 months received one crap report which is absolute garbage! The editor comes up with a nonsensical (literally non-sensical) explanation rejecting the paper. Journals in Economic Analysis & Policy, Very high quality referee reports and suggestions for improvement the manuscript. Excellent referee reports (equivalent to JUE) and great editor (J.E. The editor Mark Taylor accepted the paper after one day of the last re-submission. Awfully slow for a desk reject, but at least the editor gave a couple of helpful comments and it was clear he'd read the paper with care. The editor was fair and provided reasons why the paper was rejected. No helpful comments, just said it was not fit for a general interest journal. One was favorable, the other was on the fence. Fields: Applied Microeconomics, Labor Economics, Quantitative Macroeconomics, Development. Would submit again. The referee reports were received by the ediotr roughly a month before a decision was made. 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. 2 good reports, clearly improved the paper. Two and a half months for a desk reject for lack of fit. Rejected by an Associate Editor, who actually read the paper, got the main idea clearly, and wrote a 2 full-page report with reasoning why this is not for JET and what journal outlets might be considered. Admittedly, they must receive a lot of submissions, but that does not excuse this. It has had it uses as a source of gossip but it accumulated the worst of any group of mostly 20 something American men. Editor didn't even bother to look at it. Good journal to cosndier for International Economics or Macro stuff.
Los Zetas Brutal Killings,
Driving Test In Albanian Language,
Scdmv Holiday Schedule 2022,
Articles E