Editor rejected based on that. Got accepted with minor revisions after two wonderful set of comments from the referees. Two rounds: less than three months in the first round and less than two months in the second round. One very good referee report out of three. Editor was Barro. Fast desk reject, no substantial comments. Seems the process is very efficient with the new editorial board, Fantastic experience: fast and very good comments. First response in less than 3 months. Editor was insufficient in evaluating our paper and rejected it due to a paper cited in the reference list! Took 6 months for first reply (ref reject); 1 referee critical but fair, the other one very critical but didn't read the paper carefully. Boilerplate "contribution not significant enough", two months pretty long for a desk reject, but can't really complain about the desk reject itself because the paper is not so great. Referee was perceptive and pointed out serious flaws in the first draft. No reason given for rejection, and no indication that the paper was actually read by anyone. Got accepted in three days. Quick desk reject after less than 24 hours without comments, annoying given the submission fee. quick process, helpful reports and editor comments, Kind reject from the editor after a week, providing reasons why the paper was rejected, 6 months to receive 2 reports. From the abstract to the conclusion, we kept arguing like "A is not the main point, we should look at B." Unacceptable waiting time. Brief, ignorant, editor's letter. Then the chief editor took over after I contact him. Some useful comments, others seemed like alibi. One report was not very helpful. 2 weeks for desk rejection. Absolutely disappointed by extremely poor response from the editor (Horioka). The reviewer has no clue as to what is happening in the paper and to what questions in the literature the paper is trying to answer. very good ref reports. Desk rejected after 3 days from Shleifer. Two lines ref report. Total waste of time. Download the MIT Economics Job Market Packet. less than 2 weeks, recommended field journal. Poor referee reports. Horrible experience! Did get a field journal suggestion and a refund of submission fees. Job Market. Actually, it was overall positive. The revision was accepted one week after resubmission. Helpful for resubmission somewhere else. Also revisions handled quite efficiently! useless reports. The Editor was quite polite. Desk reject after 1 month. Editor provided no additional comments. One was good and one was particularly bad with a lot of non-english expressions. 3 months to R&R, accepted after 1 round of revision. Although our paper is rejected by the reviewer, I would be very happy to read the referee report. We agreed with most of the comments. He had nothing but praise for it and offered good suggestions. The referee reports were good. Fast and kind desk rejection. after more than 3 months still "with editor". It details the following: Preparing to go on the job market. Overall very good experience. 1 R&R round. Took way to long for three one page poor quality reports. Short straight-to-the point referee report with a few nice points, no bullc*ap. Good experience. I got the referee reports after 2.5 months from submission. Good experience, worth the 100$ :). The other did not understand the basic identification strategy in the paper. Editor told us to what extent the comment should be addressed. 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. Referee reports were low quality, but relatively standard low quality rather than being especially bad. At least it was fast. Two useless reports for a paper that has been accepted by another journal of general interest. Nothing in the email suggested that anyone had actually read the paper. major revision, then minor (decision in a matter of days). Good reports. One extremely hostile report written by someone who is clearly trying to delay my results from coming out and another one paragraph report recommending minor revisions. Rogerson very quickly pointed out the paper did not merit publication. Editor (and referees) rejected based on bad fit and offered suggestions for where to submit next. Good experience. There is only one report called review number 2! Editor decided to reject because he could only find one person to review. Very unlucky submission: First round Reject and Resubmit. Bad to useless reports after a longish delay. Got the reports after 6 weeks in both rounds. They have not released it, sorry. Quality Ref reports. From here on, AEJs are the way to go outside top 5. Not even one comment. Do not send your papers to this journal. Editor is a little slow. Submission for a special issue. We did. Good experience, even though a reject. Katz had very clear advice regarding revision (also what parts of the referee reports to ignore). 04 Jun Optimization-Conscious Econometrics Summer School; . Helpful reports and suggestions by the editor. Not signed by any specific editor, so not even sure who handled the manuscript. Demanded a lot of work during r&r but reasons for rejection were already known in the first version. Nice words from Editor. I am currently studying the interaction between technological and demographic changes and the labor market. Ok and efficient process - was told at one point that Chirs Pissarides had to approve acceptance our paper because of the subject matter, which seemed implausible. Ref reports were okay. Comments didn't make sense. Good experience. Good reports. Therefore, we have decided not to review the paper. Expedient. Editor was super helpful. Who are these people?? Editor accepted it. Other, did not read the paper carefully yet rejected. Graduate Advisors. Nedless to say I got no referee report even after asking. Journal of Economic and Social Measurement. Very good experience. 1 referee very positive, 1 very negative, 1 barely read the paper. Great experience. Job Market. Extremely fast and thoughtful. ANyway, I think this is a risk when submitting to general interest journals. Editor didn't even bother to look at it. Had to email them to speed up the revision process. Got two most useless reports ever. The referees responded very quickly and with excellent, high quality reports. One referee said "take it", two said "we dislike coauthor, he published something similar in psych journal, do not take". Isn't it so obvious?" Received 3 high-quality referee reports within 4 months. Suggested changes and several other outlets. Some useful comments from his friend. Finally, it reminds me of the CEO voice tone BS paper that they published a couple of years ago. Desk rejected after more than 6 months without any review or comments. Job Market. One excellent referee report, and one decent one. Editor (Y Zenou) sides with rejection because: if empirical, RSUE publishes mainly papers with methodological innovation. 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. Average time between rounds of R&R (months), EJMR | Job Market | Candidates | Conferences | Journals | Night Mode | Privacy | Contact. Would submit again. Took 6 months to receive 3 reports. Ref report definitely helpful. Took altogether 8 months to acceptance. Poor / no justification for decision. Notice that I submitted there on the basis of the widely publicized (EEA Gothenburg) fastness of this journal. The comment by the editor in charge was helpful. The editor said that enjoyed the paper very much but the contributon is not sufficiently broad for a general interest journal as JHR and fits better into a labour journal. Other referee reports are okay, not very useful. one referee pointed to their own working paper which is still not published (jan 2017), Positive: 1 high quality referee report and some comments by the co-editor; Negative: 2 other referee reports of medium to very low quality. Editor misunderstood the findings, complained didn't understand the Y variable (maybe ease up on the word limit then). rejected in exactly three weeks - editor said that the topic only gets published in JEBO if there's a special issue (which mine was not connected with). Bugaga! Good experience. Good report. Slow. The reports were good and helpful. In the meantime they lied to me saying that it was out for review and that they were awaiting referee scores. The editor asked the author to collect more data and resubmit as a new article. Fast desk reject (~2 weeks) with a couple of brief, helpful comments from the editor. No refund. Over 8 weeks for a desk reject due to poor fit for journal. Only got form letter. In only four sentences, ref manages to contradict himself. Avoid at all costs.. Way too slow though. recommended Journal of Development Economics. He kept for 3 months and then desk reject because the data period stops at 2013, while we submitted in 2017. of? 1 really great and super helpful report, 1 good report, very fast and efficient process. The article went online first very quickly after acceptance, which was nice. Will not submit here in the future. Quick response with 2 good reports and clear editor comments. it was in 2016. complete waste of time, Very nice editor's letter. Form letter from the editor. The editor, Richard Rogerson, is very careful and handles the paper in a timely manner. Decent referee reports. complimentary with some comments but said focus was too narrow, Good feedback from eitor, very quick desk reject. After both referees mentioned that there was an improvement in the revision, the editor rejected the paper without giving justifiable reason. Just one very low quality report. One detailed report. super slow for what they give. One referee was in favour of a strong R&R, the other recommended rejection on the basis of mathematical error, the AD seconded the latter. One crappy referee report, one useful referee report, one grad student referee report. Tough referee process, won over 3, 4th still had doubts but Editor pushed ahead. It has been about 16 months now. Ridiculous. One excellent and positive report. Desk accept?
Econ Job Market Rumors | Now Hiring - CareHealthJobs Submission fee refund. Journal of Business and Economic Statistics, excellent experience. 19 Jul 2023. Disappointing. WE got an RR, submitted the revisions in 6 months (a lot of extra work done). In print a couple of weeks later. $65 down the drain! Desk rejected in two weeks. One referee report was helpful, the other was on average. Incredibly tough process with three rounds of revisions - first round ended up me writing a response as long as the original paper. Don't bother submitting here unless you're in the club. Second round 4 months before acceptance. Poorly managed journal. Fast response and quality report made me satisfied. I would submit again or recommend this outlet! Very smooth process. Commented that something we are doing is not correct, while all the papers in the field are doing the same. Very smooth process in general, no complaints. But the discipline should find another way. 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) We tried to do everything we were asked to and also had a major overhaul of the data. To avoid. Desk rejected in the 24 hour window. Referees do not seem to have read the paper well, poorly written reports. The paper is in between energy and finance, and the referees were more knowledgable of Energy than Finance, where our approach is more standard I'd say. Desk reject within 1 day. Overall fair process. 1 good report and 1 not so good. AE decided to reject! Overall good experience. Would not bother again. Awesome experience. The reason was that the, Andrew Samwick rejected within 2 days, Topic is too speacialized for EL. The editor did not even realized this and rejected. Two excellent reviews both recommending rejection. Good experience. Overall, I was disappointed not by the outcome per se, which is part of the game, but by the poor judgment of the referee. About 10 weeks from submission to referee reject. We'll see. They desk rejected a paper that had been previously accepted for review at much better journals. Editor acknowledge that it was a bad draw. Editor looked at it as did a colleague of the editor. This journal still has the word economics in its tile, please stop asking clueless marketing types to referee! At least they gave decent feedback. No ref reports, 1 sentence from editor. It is definitely not worth the long wait! Comments were quite simple, I resubmitted after one month, and the editor accepted the paper after 40 days. Within a week, Laura Schechter clearly went through the paper and give it a thought with a couple of helpfull comments. To summarize, this reviewer apparently thought he had better English than Shakespeare. Massive waste of time and money. I waited fora long time only to be rejected with a response NOT A GOOD FIT.
Job Postings | The Econometric Society 1 month for R&R, 1 week for acceptance after revision submitted. No evidence that the editor read even the abstract. The journal took 13 months to get 1 referee report from a non-expert only to reject our paper. 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. No reimburment of submission fee ($130). Reports very helpful. Second round took 30 minutes, from submission to acceptance. Didn't even quite read the rewritten paper. 2/2 referee reports were positive and suggested R&R because the contribution was significant enough. Wasted 17 months. Extremely long wait at this journal for comments. JEDC is well run. Submitted to conference edition. Three weeks for a desk reject. Very efficient editorial process, excellent reports. 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. So there is zero feedback. I don't disagree with decision, but too long for a relatively straight-forward empirical paper. He recommended me to send it to a more specialized field journal. We regularly reject without referees the majority of all papers submitted to the QJE. Very bad experience. The editor suggest that the paper is not good enough for ET! I don't think he/she took a wee bit of pain to find out the context. Which.a 3 month wait on with an expense submission fee for desk reject. Recommended field journals. Two very helpful reports and encouraging letter from AE. The journal is higher than B. Wilson inform me, on average, EI first decision is in 67 days, but my six months delay is not due to neglect (YEAH RIGHT! 2 was more critical. Poor quality single report. Best experience in my long career (20+ years, 10+ top publications). Reject because apparently would not fit in their journal. It seems to me that the editor rejected based on how well the article was written, rather than the substance of the work. I am a macroeconomist specialized in economic growth and macro labor. Two referee reports and one report from the associate editor. good comments, a nice experience even though the outcome was a rejection. The editor was good. His own comments were not based on the reports. Two useful referee reports at the end of the third month. 1 month + 10 days for desk rejection. Reports detailed and helpful. Considered waste of time here. This journal is a joke.
Hassan Afrouzi Assistant Professor of Economics Columbia University Good referee report + some comments from AE. Excellent reports that really improved the paper. there is no 2016 in the dropdown list. (s)he asks me to reference a paper I myself wrote when I wa a PhD student but which I did not send anywhere. So if your topic is not within this field, the desk rejection is much more likely. Waste of the submission fee. Economics Job Market Rumors Off Topic Technology. I was worried about the wait, but in the end got a very good editorial letter (from Reis) with great suggestions. Editor read the paper and outlined clear and fair reasons for rejection. Disappointing turnaround for this journal. Two referee reports; one high quality, one very low quality. Three reports, two reports are with doable suggestions, one is low-quality. Two excellent referee reports. Great comments from editors and referees. The editor does not respond to emails. The report I did get back (in the form of an email from the editor) was not very informative (referee claimed "expressing time series as deviations from trend does not produce a stationary time series". 3 Reports. Very well-run journal. Top scholars if it comes to RCTs, but no broaded view. Resubmitted and then conditional accepted within a week. So despite I got a rejection, the experience is actually not that bad. Editor letter saying that what we do is not so new. If? Formal letter in less than 10 days returning my manuscript. Long waiting for 10 months, send 3 emails to ask, reply: under review, some useful comments from ref despite recommending reject. Very fast. Highly recommended. One referee report that likes the research question but does not like thr approach. At this point, the editor asked us to review the abstract and the highlights. Apart from long waiting time (editor part of the old guard at JPE), positive experience. 14 days. Good referee report and very efficient editor. The editor said some good words but also said he could not turn over the recommendation. The report had a few good notes but none that really seemed to disqualify the paper from getting an R&R. Useful reports. The reports point out some concerns that are not difficult to fix. A good journal, Quick and fair outcome with a nice response from the editor, Good experience with every step completed in a timely fashion. However, no evidence the paper was actually read. 1 report, minor issues, rejected. E. Two detailled and useful reports, one irrelevant. Very helpful reports. Letter from the editor not so much informative. It appears they don't like overly technical papers (it's an interdisciplinary journal so depends on who the editor is at the time - if not an economist, then avoid). Referee identified some problems of the paper, but her suggestions were incorrect and provided references were not suitable. 5 days, paper is too specific for QJE, Helpman suggested another journal. Second one didn't understand the paper and said it was already written. fair and efficient process. International Journal of Finance and Economics. AER Insights: very general reviews, nothing to improve the paper contentwise, but will help to improve the writeup until the next reject. All queries tough but manageable - only difficulty was having 3 refs say sometimes contradictory things. Some good comments from reviewers, but all focused on marginal issues. And some more nice words. I wonder whether they actually read the document. The referee has read the paper. A waste of 250$ and time. 10 lines not even sure they read the paper. Editor identity unknown. The second editor rejected it. Two very useful referee reports. Excellent communication with editor. Frank asked us to revise two more rounds after the reviewers are OK with the paper. Helpful comments from referees and editor. 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. Editor should know better. The associate editor however provided some useful comments which helped us improve the paper. -> Toilet. Submitted a taxation paper that was outside of their comfort zone. desk rejected after more than 2 months, very generic motivation (try a field journal), they took the submission fees and thanked me a lot for the payment! You can even not see these wordings in Game of Thrones. Much better than overal reputation of journal. THREE MONTHS! Between two referee reports and two conference discussions, I have some things to consider for future submission. R&R was helpful. Ignored the fact that their proposed biases work against my conclusion. Reason given: "not general enough." Rejection after R&R. Got rejection after 4 months. Currently in R&R. My first ever publication. Clearly no effort was put into it. All editors have lined up to publish their own papers (just see the forthcoming papers, 3 (three!!) Third round (acceptance) took 2 weeks. Average Quality R-Reports, one missed one has good comments. Eight months is a long wait though. Referee didn't buy identification strategy. It took me 7 months to recieve a major revision required; however, my second revision is accepted in just 2 weeks!! fair comment.
Home | Economics Job Market Rumors Neither of the two reviewers seemed t have read the paper. Campus visits. Good editor. After submitting revisions, 1 month until final decision to accept with no other edits. The paper was with editor with lack of referees for almost a month. As a theoretical contribution, it is not sufficient for Economics Letters. I am not in a club, whatever it is.). Desk after 1 day from Katz, very polite and parsing of the paper, although not GI. 2.5 are very positive. The other referee took 7 month without giving back the report. Fast desk reject (Ciccone), after few days. Suggested to send to another journal! Then editor Dean Karlan rejected it for fit. Rejection based on technical point, which could be fixed withing 2 weeks. Will submit again. The revision review was quite fast too. Paper is about a politically charged issue, so I would like to think that more than one reviewer should be asked to submit a report. Horrible editorial process. Unbelievably fast process, tough-but-fair referee notes that improved the paper. Two good referee reports though the review process is A bit slow. Very quick response. Reviewers likely not in my area; rather superficial comments. Rejected after revision, very good comments in initial round. Quick response. Bad experience. Good reports, but what a punch in the gut. Editor was Andrew Street. Fast R&R with reasonable reports and encouraging editor letter. Was rejected today by editor as only 1/2 referee reports submitted. English. Shameless people. The time was not long (bit less than 10 weeks), the outcome was what is normal in this profession (Referee rejection). Referee report was ready within a month after submission. Split recommendations, editor decided to reject which is fair enough. A colleague from another school submitted there and also had to wait a long time for very poor quality referee reports. Desk rejected in a few days. Editor claimed that referee is an expert in the field. Terrible screening process at this journal. Unfortunately, they called out the problems that I was already aware of / do not have a good way of fixing. Two rounds: less than three months in the first round and about two months in the second round. My previous two research papers were also desk rejected by Barro. Referee report had two short paragraphs, one of them factually incorrect and demonstrating lack of knowledge of basic facts about Japanese exchange rate movements. ", Took two months to desk reject, although initial email assured of a very short response time for desk rejecttions, Desk rejected because of formatting issue but invited to resubmit; took a few days for desk rejectioin. Suggested top field (JPubE in our case).
42095413ff68ff132cd9ece7a35 Ben Davies Tottenham Arrested,
Soundesign Stereo System,
Articles E