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) Reports were semi thorough and okay, appreciated the fairly quick response, The referees raised concerns that we were not able to see before, and they were fair. Very fast decisions. avoid. Took a year for the paper to get accepted. Overall very good experience. The editor did not even realized this and rejected. One reviewer was ok after the first R&R. Excellent comments from reviewers. Very good experience. rejected by editor, saying should submit to other similar journal. Go report in 2 days. Clearly the referee was someone not in the field of the paper (Asset Pricing). Paper rejected based on the editor's phone conversation with the referee. Boo! 2 days from submission to desk rejection. This was back when Bill Evans was editor. Efficient and fair. Three excellent reports, the referees had really put an effort. Good experience overall. journal does not sound like a good fit for my research agenda. I was very grateful despite the rejection. Expected a bit better. [3] Like its sister sites Political Science Rumors and Sociology Job Market Rumors, EconJobRumors is only lightly moderated and preserves posters' anonymity. This was after a 6 month wait and emails to the editor to follow up. Comments are not useful at all. Fantastic experience (accepted first round), Directly accepted within one month. I've been around the block a few times, published in top 5, and most of my articles get cited considerably more than average for the journal. American Economic Journal: Macroeconomics. Waiting more than a year, since October 2015. Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics. Three weeks for a desk reject. Absolutely disappointed by the bs response from the editor (Horioka). Relatively quick turnaround, but, reports were not particularly helpful. Unfortunately, they called out the problems that I was already aware of / do not have a good way of fixing. Unfair letter from Emi N. Great letters from four referees and three of them are very positive! Long process but well worth it! On the downside, the time between each of the two rounds of R&R was longish. 2 ref reports, one very thorough and thoughtful, one fairly cursory. linking the paper with the "literature in the field", although we specifically say that our empirical application is novel to the field, so there are no comparable references. Quick rejection (12 days), with nice words and other journal recommendations from the editor. My previous two research papers were also desk rejected by Barro. Pleasant experience overall. The editor, Richard Rogerson, is very careful and handles the paper in a timely manner. Extremely efficient process with good comments by referees. We'll see. Nice words from Editor. Suggested field journal. After two rounds all the referee agreed to publish the paper. Reports were pretty good. No feedback and no useful suggestion in the rejection letter. Just one referee report. First referee constructive and positive. Constructive and very specific. Seems this was not consistent with what is written in website. The report seemed to be more appropriate for a revise and resubmit. After pressing four times, they told me it was out for review. all in all four years without ever seeing a referee report. Fast. Editor wrote report himself. Paper too good for their journal. The least the editor could have done is to assign another editor. No comments from the editor though. 16 hour turnaround with nice letter of thoughtful comments suggesting more specialized journal. Referee #1 wrote 1 sentence saying to submit it to AER. I have never received any good referee reports from JFQA. Reason given: "not general enough." Bad experience. Really improved the paper. Very long (2 years), costly, inconsistent, unprofessional process. Total waste of time. Welcome to the EconTrack Job Market Information Board, a service hosted by the AEA. Short straight-to-the point referee report with a few nice points, no bullc*ap. instantaneous rejection, however, without any comments, 5 Weeks for a desk reject without comments. Two reports were reasonable and one report was very low quality. Desk reject after 2 weeks due to bad fit. Excellent work by den Haan, providing even better feedback than two (good) referees. One positive and one negative report. Two reports: one insightful (R&R recommendation), the other recommended reject ("contribution is too small"). Desk reject after 3 days. Editor not helpful at all. Wish the outcome was different, but the turnaround time couldn't have been better. Going into the ninth month with no response. We have done that, after several weeks, no answer. Per editor, not good fit for IO bent of the journal, not broad enough for general interest journal. Referee #2 wrote a few sentences explaining how he/she doesn't trust covid data and how it should just be a theory paper. REHO is a scam, not a journal. I sent in my paper and after 2 emails requesting information about the status of my manuscript, I was asked to be patient. Finally, it reminds me of the CEO voice tone BS paper that they published a couple of years ago. Predoctoral Research Analyst -- Applied Microeconomics. Do not offer any innovative technique. Editor obviously read the paper. Received acceptance on the same day i resubmitted the paper. fast desk rejection within 2 days. The overall comments are OK. Actually, not as bad as many people think.Reports by referee and AE were of little help (they raised a few valid points), but this can happen at any other journal too. The other report also helped in improving the paper. One paragraph that dismissed four years of work. my ?defense,? Silly comments from AE. 1 positive but short & useless, 1 incompetent negative who didn't even understand the historical topic. Old fashined. The journal took 13 months to get 1 referee report from a non-expert only to reject our paper. Very helpful referee report. Full refund. Professional editor. Pretty sure the editor didn't even read the paper. Thoughtful comments from the referees and the editor. very disappointing. It is a disgrace to the profession reflects poorly on the journal. Good comments from the referee. The editor satisfied the reply to the original referee reports and accepted it in 4 months. After both referees mentioned that there was an improvement in the revision, the editor rejected the paper without giving justifiable reason. Editor claimed an expert in the field reviewed the paper while the referee admitted in his first sentence of the report that he is not. A bit slow but overall a good experience. Good reports. Really good experience, good comments and moved quickly through the process. So if your topic is not within this field, the desk rejection is much more likely. Job Market Paper: Local Polynomial Estimation of Time-Varying Parameters in GMM. never submit to this journal again. Rejected based upon (naturally) lack of interest in the topic. He wanted to give the paper a careful read and this was not possible immediately. Think I got lucky. Very, very disappointed! Not a good referee match given papers subject matter and therefore not very useful comments. Great experience. The paper is not GREAT enough for AEJ Micro!!! Split recommendations, editor decided to reject which is fair enough. Good report with relevant comments which will be useful if publication of this study is pursued further. Was desk rejected in one day. if we go by his saying, then all finance articles are purely pointless. Co-editor rejects because contribution is not big enough to warrant publication. One almost non-existent referee report (basically two lines just saying the paper is not broad enough), one very detailed and overall positive report. Very good reports that help us to improve the paper a lot. One short and one longer report. I felt as if 65$ has evaporated from my pocket. Response from editor sided with this second referee and provided little justification. This journal is a bit hell to make it attractive to authors in order to get their money easily. Report is in reasonable quality. Smooth process. Clearly no effort was put into it. Good points, though, and overall a good experience. Worse experience ever. The third referee recommended acceptance, but the editor rejected. One of the papers has over 3000 citations. 2 years no reply, then short letter and reject, I would never send there again. But referees are very negative. Lost more than 6 months for nothing. happy for a quick decision. I expected something more serious from a journal with such a high submission fee. 10 days for desk rejection decision. Oh well, on to the next journal. The editor read the paper carefully and made helpful comments. Pulled a weak R&R. Constructive and helpful comments from the co-editor. Main reason for this is that they assigned a different associate editor on the second round which I find highly unusual. Not general interest enough. The editor (Mallick) gave us some additional advice and was ok with the result. Ever. Do you really understand American history? Thorough review. 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). Managing the academic job market. Ridiculous experience. R&R we need to improve the paper a lot before resubmission. Not much insight from the editor, whose concerns were rather vague. 2 Reports. Job Market. Editor should know better. Relatively Quick Process. It took too long, I do not know if I would submit there again. Although my article had Nikkei 225 index in it they rejected it anyway! Editor was polite. Four months for a desk reject! Brief, ignorant, editor's letter. from AE, but editor rejected without explanation. Ref2 was not. I do not think that the referee understood my paper. In only four sentences, ref manages to contradict himself. 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. Argued lack of fit, dispite publishing a paper on the subject a few months ago, one very short useless report in seven months, 5 months + 125USD for a referee rejection with a report of about 21 lines.SHAME. Mostly good comments, though not given much detail about main criticism. Very quick rejection, but I received a nice response from one of the co-editors. Serrano seems to be a good/efficient editor. Very different than my past experience. True, no time wasted, just the $125 submission fee. In the second round, the comments are from only one referee, they are easy so revise. ~5 weeks. The paper was accepted after the first round revision. Total 6 months. the difference was not economically meaningful. Entire process takes 1 month. Editor delayed a lot. Wasn't my target journal but I'll take the pub in a recognizable outlet. Essentially a desk reject after six months saying the paper was not related enough to energy issues, no other substantive comment. Got a slow desk rejection from LB telling me/us to cite someone I cited in the intro. Two helpful referee reports. Desk rejected in less than one month. Four reports with huge list of changes -- Editor rejected after R&R because she didn't like the data. Very good experience despite the slow turn around. decent referee reports, overall good experience. The reports were largely useless. Will never submit to this journal again. One referee for sure did not read the paper as pointed things which were actually in the paper. Water Research Manager (Project Manager) Just a one-paragraph report saying that the results are not "novel". The first round took too long (~10 months). Overall good experience. Overall very good quality of reports and very helpful guidance from the editor. Drop the "Economics." Just "Job Market Rumors." They just pocketed the submission fee. Journals in Economic Analysis & Policy, Very high quality referee reports and suggestions for improvement the manuscript. The editor's comments show that he is totally uninformed about the literature. Another one was sharp. The referees gave great feedback to improve the paper. Reviews were completed soon but the editors did not send them to me, nor did they respond to queries. Other outlet probably more suitable. It was completely incoherent. Expected better, expert who cited himself, brutal but fair referee report that led to major revision. If editor did not like the paper, then just desk reject! One positive report, one negative, editor's reject decision. They changed their system recently and the new system indicated that my paper had not been submitted so I waited 5 months for nothing. Good referee reports about key aspects of the research question framing and relevance. Was a longshot. 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. Very good experience all around. Reviewers gave substantive comments and significantly improved the paper. Probably I was a bit lucky the 2 referees liked the idea of teh paper sicne ti was a bit sort and basically asked me to do some mreo stuff. They pretend to look like an international journal however thay only consider studies related to Japan. Form-letter rejection. Also good editing support. Why don't black people open carry and call it 2nd amendment rights? Quick to online first. took 7 months for 1 referee report, but the R&R was quick. I suspect a tight club. is ?quite ?perplexing, ?since ?the ?Nash ?axioms ?apply ?to? Rejected within a few hours - unclear that associate editor had read the paper carefully, rather than just the limited 100 word abstract, since comments repeated points made within the paper. It seems they rushed to reject it. It is run by "Kirk", [1] an alias possibly derived from Kirkland, Washington, the city in which the website is registered. Very quick. Excellent review with great advice on how to improve the paper. Useful comments from knowledgeable reviewers. Some helpful comments. Overall a good experience that will help the paper! Received 3 high-quality referee reports within 4 months. Clearly done day before deadline. Referees and editor reports were incredibly useful, Shitty ref report. One great referee, one ok. Super fast process. Editor offers insightful suggestions as well. other outlets are suggested. Fast process. Reports were of moderate quality. Why do Americans obsess over Japan work hours and suicide rates? 2 was more critical. Desk rejected the next day. Total turn around time was about 40 days. Very fast rounds with very insightful and reasonable referee reports and suggestions by the editor. One good report, the other one poor. Referee identified some problems of the paper, but her suggestions were incorrect and provided references were not suitable. Overall, I was very pleased with the process. waiting 19 months as of today, sent 3 reminfers, Hall nor anybody else from the journal havent responded so far to any of my emails. You are of course now free to submit the paper elsewhere should you choose to do so." Job Market Candidates | Department of Economics Robert J. Barro desk rejected the paper in less than 24 hours. 5 months before the editor could take the time to look at the paper. AE didn't provide comments which is odd. Very good set of comments from Ricardo Reis. 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. 19. Very smooth process in general, no complaints. However, the quality of the report is very high and it helps improve the paper a lot. Would definitely recommend it even if it's a longshot. Three good reports and fair decision. One referee openly mentioned s/he doesnt like the method used in the paper. Very good experience: I wish all my rejected submissions were as fast and polite. Crappy reports. the? He made the most stupid argument to reject the paper. only one report (quite helpful). Very inefficient handling of the work. Good comments, helped improve the paper. Desk reject within 1 day. very quick response and a useful referee report. The reports were good and helpful. Submitted in the covid special issue. Pretty bad experience. Associate editor thinks that DEAF is JFE. Useless experience. The first revision took around 5 months. This journal has published MANY papers using these methods and policy makers regularly fund these methods. Of course we don't like the reports, or editor's comments, but there is some helpful stuff. Letter by Concerned Economists Regarding "Contracting for Sex in the AER Insights: Generic rejection without any thought or suggestion. Very slow. paper.? Quite poor reviews (not helpful) so Editor gave lots of helpful guidance. Rejected with two reports with fair remarks. 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). One great, very helpful report; one report that made an honest effort, but wasn't useful; one report that was one paragraph long and littered with spelling mistakes. Quick turnaround upon revision. Can't complain with the decision and the entire process. New editorial team doing a sound job in moving papers through the pipeline. Good editing process. After waiting for 6 months received one crap report which is absolute garbage! Great letter from Nezih G and two good referee reports. Editor and editorial staff excellent. Very clubby journal. Editor desk rejected stating that paper (which was on the program of Top 3 conferences etc.) Job Market. fast response but low quality referee reports, fast and reliable journal. Fast publication with reasonable reviewer reports. Quick, very good feedback. Although other comments on this journal say that the review process is long, I had very different experience. Two years later still waiting for referee reports. Annoyed because all of the concerns were addressed and yet she could not be bothered to re-read the paper. ), 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. Awful experience! My fault for not discussing that up front. Editor followed the referees suggestion, though with his own view on the paper. I ended up presenting the paper at two conferences between the submission and the decision. 1 extremely helpful report and 2 so so ones. 20 months to acceptance since first submission. Submitted in 2012. Rejection after R&R. one week to accepted with minor changes. Rubbish report ! Very clear and good process. No reimburment of submission fee ($130). A nice formated letter saying that the topic was not interesting enough for the audience of the Journal. Suggested a field journal, American Journal of Agricultural Economics. Took a little over a month for the desk reject and no refunds. Home. The referee was clearly trying to protect his own paper on a related topic; half of the bullet points referred to that paper. Lasted 4 days! Overall an excellent experience. However, I had issues with production, they uploaded the wrong version of my paper etc, and it looked like it wasn't even copy edited. The editor comes up with a nonsensical (literally non-sensical) explanation rejecting the paper. great reviews and useful comments for ref, only 1 referee report 3 sentences long by reviewer who did not read the paper, Good reports but very slow to get a rejection. Paper desk rejected in 3 days. But editor is very good, One referee report with no constructive comments. While I was disappointed to be rejected, I was extremely pleased with the professionalism of the journal. Manuscript was withdrawn - editor had assigned referees within 3 months of submission but then these were apparently not forthcoming. Took about two weeks. I spent less time and less effort revising 30 pages papers in other similar ranked journals than in EL, Excellent process and editor provided useful comments and guidance, Very pleasant experience very quick and the report professional. Would submit again. Good referee reports. Really bad experience (Midrigan was the editor). however,? There's this cute girl who plays guitar very badly in just her bra on YouTube, Hyatt Hotels, Data Scientist- posted one week ago, 982 applicants, Young men reveal why so many of them are single: Dates feel more like job inter, A day in the life of childless single broette, "Just get an industry job" - It's not that simple. a? 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." The editor suggested an alternative outlet, which was where the paper eventually got published. Overall very fast process. the ?Nash? very professional; some referees had good points; should have spent more time polishing the paper before submitting. Rejected within 24hrs by Katz. Desk rejected the next day. Would definitely submit here again. Waited over 9 month for a half-page low quality report. very good comments. One fairly high-quality report, one not-so good. 5 weeks for a desk reject. a 2 paragraph referee report that was not particularly helpful - at least the turnaround time was fast - might as well have been a desk rejection, Very low quality reports. Not very helpful reports. Paper got desk rejected shortly after. Very good comments even if he slightly misunderstood the contribution. Editorial board review and then rejection. Very useful comments which helped improve the paper substantially. Very efficiently run journal (at least my experience). Ok, experience if it wouldnt be for the 11 months. One highly vauable report; one okay-ish, one less useful. Horrible experience. One good referee report, one referee who had no idea. One report was low quality the other was so-so. To avoid. One referee clearly did not read the paper, while the other one did not understand the meaning of control variables. Whole process super quick. It was quick. Letters from the Editor was nice. Good reports. Editor chose to follow the suggestion of the AE. Journal of Economics and Finance Education. Or rather, the editor is very lazy to follow up on the reports. Perhaps we can call JABO an experimental journal now. Editor gave a short summary of two sentences of the paper, mentioned three additional recent articles from the literature, and suggested an alternative journal. Sum up: Fast but not cool, Editor. The referee did not understand the basic assumption of the model. one of the reports was literaly 3 sentences. After 7 months at the journal, I get one extremely low quality referee report. Paper got rejected but everything else about submitting to this journal was more than satisfactory. Suggested changes and several other outlets. One told me I should have use the methodology introduced by XPTO et al, which was the one I used and cited Only worthy comment was the editors who stated (and rightly so) that though our model statistically improved forecasts. Going through 15 months of the reviewing process. Desk reject within a 10 day but editor provided a short 'referee' report mentioning five issues. Ass editor wrote some useful comments. What was the Dittmar scandal at Michigan/Ross in the old days? Some conflicting recomms that editor didn't address. R2 did not give a report in time, even after extensions. "Referee report" Biggest joke on Earth!! Recommended field journals Clueless editor thinks results are of narrow interest. AWFUL editorial work. completely ?misread? The outcome (referee rejection) was acceptable but 5 month waiting is a large waste of time! 5 months for a desk reject! good process overall, Good experience. No clue about topic etc would be kind thing to say. A bit slow for a 2000 words paper. Disappointing turnaround for this journal. Never again. Then one round of R&R and second referee changed his mind. Editor desk-rejected in 1 day. A bit of wait but ok for econ standards. A bit slow, but good comments by the referee. Reject and resubmit. Paper desk rejected in 4 days. more months, before rejection based on superficial comments. Editor is bonkers, he said article was outside scope of journal.when it was clearly regiona/urban economics article. One referee does not follow simple math, immediately assumes the model is wrong and the editor takes his side. Editor Michele Boldrin did a good job handling the paper. A lot of small nit-picky criticism and some factually wrong statements about paper. It seems from this website that this in not uncommon for this journal. Four RR rounds. From here on, AEJs are the way to go outside top 5. Strange experience anyway and wont like to repeat it. AER, JPE), but taste a factor. Baltagi desk rejected it in 2 days for being lack of novelty. Sent my paper to another different journal. 3rd review was pending. And some more nice words. Two referee reports very useful, pointing to the same concerns, one of them quite positive and friendly, providing numerous pathways to pursue in the future. We believe this policy serves contributors who are saved months of unnecessary delays. One referee report---which is actually better than any report ever received with this paper (including those from RFS, JFQA, and MS). Desk after 1 day from Katz, very polite and parsing of the paper, although not GI. The editor was fair and provided reasons why the paper was rejected. 11 months for a rejection. Worst experience so far. 3 months for desk reject with superficial comments is ridiculous. Great experience, 2/3 quite tough referees and a fair editor. 1 suggested r&r other reject, AE decided to reject--fair decision. one very weird report, asking to cite an unknown WP, from a PhD student One R&R with minor rev, one inscrutable report, and one unfair report with incorrect claims. Have contacted the editorail asistant three times (startung six weeks after submission) who said she would remind the editor. Got response approx. desk rejection within 1 week. It is ridiculous how much time the referees take to submit their reports. Referee said there is a mistake in the proof. 2 quality ref reports + brief comments by editor. Ex: CDF was derived to construct the likelihood of a discrete choice model, a reviewer writes the author does not use the derived CDF. Most efficient experience with journals ever! Editor also read the paper and agreed with referees. Tough but receptive referees. Good experience. The AE also provided his own review. Under two month for two reports. Submission to a special issue. solution? Both the referees pimped their own tangentially related paper (yes, the same one). Seems safe to ignore the submission guideline: "In tables, please report standard errors in parentheses but do not use *s to report significance levels.". Editor then read the paper and rejected it. Editor highly incompetent. Very unfair review by the referee and by the editor-in-chief. Desk rejected in 8 days. Two years ago, I had a different paper rejected by EER, with two good referee reports and an AE negative about it. Referee did not bother to read the paper. 3 weeks to desk reject paper because it didn't fit the journal.

Symptoms Of Being Poisoned Slowly By Someone, The Backing Maneuver Can Be Difficult Because, Did Esty Sleep With Robert Unorthodox, Articles E